Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — Defence

British Army of the Rhine

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operational readiness of United Kingdom forces stationed on the German Rhine.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Philip Goodhart): I am confident that British Forces in Germany are fully capable of making their major contribution to the implementation of NATO strategy.

Mr. Winterton: Although I do not wish to anticipate the statement to be made later this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whom we congratulate on taking an important position in the Government, may I point out to my hon. Friend that many Conservative Members believe that the readiness of our troops in BAOR is totally inadequate, both in respect of personnel and equipment? Is he aware that some of us have received complaints that our troops in BAOR are inadequately provided with ammunition and spares for the equipment there?

Mr. Goodhart: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that during the past year the strength of BAOR has increased markedly and that, due to improved manning levels in the Royal Armoured Corps, 560 tanks are manned at present in BAOR, compared with 475 in January 1980.

Mr. Buck: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his appointment. We hope that he will have a happy tenure of office. In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, is he aware that many of us were reassured by the visit we paid recently during the BAOR exercise? Does he agree that that exercise indicated that a high degree of preparedness and morale exists there, as well as a high degree of efficiency in the back-up from the Territorial Army in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Goodhart: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. He will remember that it takes a long time fully to evaluate the result of any exercise. Certainly, the initial reaction of

foreign observers and of the Ministry of Defence to "Operation Crusader" showed that it was an outstanding success.

Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are limits to the amount of money which, in our present economic circumstances, we can afford to devote to British forces on the Continent? Is it not high time that we made clear to our allies that they must make a much larger contribution if those forces are to stay there?

Mr. Goodhart: I realise that it is important for all the allies in NATO to make an adequate contribution to the central front. There is no doubt that Britain's commitment to the central front is essential to our strategy.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend consider that Germany is making a sufficient financial contribution to the maintenance of BAOR, bearing in mind that Germany benefits directly? If that is his view what new initiative will the Government take?

Mr. Goodhart: That is a matter of continuing discussion with our allies in NATO.

Combat Aircraft

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current position on the future of the European combat aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): Our studies are continuing. A further report on the possibility of collaboration with France and Germany is due in the spring of this year.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the successful production of the European combat aircraft, or something similar, is vital to maintaining the world-beating industrial base that we have in the United Kingdom, let alone the strategic need for a replacement for the Jaguar in due course?

Mr. Pattie: The important word is "similar". As I said in my original answer, the discussions on the project are continuing. It is extremely important that the British aerospace industry has an advance programme on which to work in due course, as I am sure that it will.

Mr. John: Will the hon. Gentleman be honest and say that this is one of a number of potential casualties arising out of the decision to acquire Trident? Does he accept that hon. Members who, for constituency reasons, laud the efforts of the British aerospace industry, cannot complain, because they have publicly defended the decision to acquire Trident?

Mr. Pattie: The future of the ECA project has nothing to do with the Trident decision. Any difficulties that the project might have are due to different operational perceptions and different industrial capability.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree, in view of the continuing improvement in the capabilitites of the Warsaw Pact air forces, that it is essential for the Royal Air Force to acquire a new tactical combat aircraft at the earliest possible date? If it is impossible to procure such an aeroplane collaboratively, will my hon. Friend examine projects designed by British Aerospace to meet RAF requirements?

Mr. Pattie: The Royal Air Force's endeavour and interest is always to examine closely anything that British Aerospace is doing. Of course it will do that.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will redistribute defence expenditure with the aim of reducing the proportion spent on nuclear weapons.

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any defence projects are under review as a result of the excalating costs of the Trident programme; and if he will list them.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): No, Sir. Our nuclear forces, including Trident, absorb, or will absorb, only a small proportion of our defence budget.

Mr. Roberts: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his appointment and express the hope that his movement will lead to better things in defence? Does he agree that, whatever argument there might be for conventional weapons, there can be no case for British nuclear weapons? Does he accept that they make only a minimal contribution to Western defence and that in any case we have no control over the majority of them?

Mr. Nott: I thank the hon. Gentleman, although his remarks could be interpreted in two ways. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's view. It seems to me that a strategic nuclear deterrent is essential to the defences of the NATO Alliance and our liberty.

Mr. Trippier: As the planned, long-range theatre nuclear forces of cruise missiles and Pershings are not primarily designed to cater for the bolt from the blue nuclear attack, does my right hon. Friend agree that the exceptional readiness of the strategic nuclear forces currently invested in Polaris and later in Trident provide the most effective and least costly form of insurance against massive surprise attack?

Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. Friend. Trident is the most cost-effective way of providing the minimum capability for a viable strategic nuclear deterrent. I believe that it should be seen as an integral part of our defence system and not as an addition to it.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State accept that his welcome to office will depend on whether he keeps election pledges to safeguard our defences or uses his Treasury experience to whittle them away? Does he realise how many commentators now accept that we cannot afford Trident without impairing the strength of the British Army of the Rhine or our naval commitments to NATO?

Mr. Nott: I intend to keep my party's commitments on defence. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although I was interested in my time in the Treasury, that was many years ago. Our strategic nuclear force—Trident, the successor to Polaris—will absorb only a relatively small part of our total defence budget, amounting to approximately 3 per cent. on average over the next fifteen years. That is not a large sum for the deterrent importance of a strategic nuclear weapon of that kind.

Mr. Adley: I welcome and congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. Does he agree with hon. Members on the Government side of the House and half

the Opposition that Mr. Attlee was right when he initiated our nuclear deterrent? Does he accept that the threat has certainly not diminished and that the only thing that has changed since then is that the Soviet Union has built up a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons? Will he confirm that it remains unequivocally the Government's policy to retain an effective nuclear deterrent for Britain?

Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. Friend and confirm everything that he says.

Mr. John: Does the Secretary of State agree that in the peak years the Trident project will absorb 15 per cent. of our equipment budget? Does he really assure the House that none of the other equipment projects planned for the Armed Forces will have to give way if we go ahead with the Trident project?

Mr. Nott: I do not accept the 15 per cent. figure. In the peak years towards the end of the 1980s Trident will absorb more than the average of 3 per cent. but nowhere near 15 per cent. I regard it as absolutely essential to a credible deterrent policy that we have a successor to Polaris. Trident is the most cost-effective way of doing that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: In addition to the £5 billion Government estimate for Trident—and such estimates have almost always proved to be under-estimates—will there not be a bill for several billions of pounds to cover the crews and maintenance of those weapons and their missiles in the first 10 years?

Mr. Nott: We estimate that the running of the Trident fleet will probably cost about the same percentage of expenditure as the existing Polaris fleet—that is, about 1½ per cent. of our total defence budget.

Viscount Cranborne: Has my right hon. Friend studied the development of laser weapon technology in the United States and the Soviet Union? If he has, is he satisfied that these rapid developments will not make intercontinental ballistic missiles obsolete?

Mr. Nott: I have been four days in office at the Ministry of Defence. I have not yet had the opportunity to study that matter.

Recruitment

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the methods of recruitment into the Armed Forces.

Mr. Pattie: I am not dissatisfied by any means with our current recruitment methods. However, there can be no room for complacency if our recent excellent recruiting performance is to continue in coming years, and it may be that more refined approaches have to be adopted to obtain those very able people, from a contracting manpower pool, whom the Armed Forces require.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that one of the unfortunate results of the high unemployment created by this Government is that in some areas the only potential employers going into the schools are the Armed Forces, which are trying to recruit young people, many of whom are left with the choice of joining the Army or the dole queue? In view of the unfair pressure that is being put on many young people, would it not be fairer for the Government to give a statutory right of free discharge to


all young Service people under the age of 18 if, after a while, they find that life in the Forces is not all that the glossy advertisements make it out to be?

Mr. Pattie: There is no question of undue pressure. As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, it is the right of new entrants to the Armed Forces to obtain a discharge during recruit training.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that sometimes in advertising for officers too much emphasis is placed on applicants having somewhat odd and trendy backgrounds, instead of those qualities of loyalty, patriotism and leadership which are really required?

Mr. Pattie: I assure my hon. Friend that the qualities he describes are still very much needed.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Would it not be much better at this time, and certainly in the interests of the United Kingdom, if these young people could be recruited into industry rather than into the Armed Forces? Is not a change in the Government's economic strategy now called for, bearing in mind that situation?

Mr. Pattie: I think that that question should more properly be directed to another Department. The hon. Gentleman speaks as though we are still operating some kind of press gang. What we are interested in is getting young people with the right degree of motivation and ability in the Armed Forces. All the figures indicate that we are doing just that.

Dr. David Clark: As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) emphasised, much of the successful recruitment takes place in areas of high unemployment, where there has been a drastic fall-off in the number of apprenticeships. Will the Minister therefore emphasise both to the MOD civilian authorities and to the Armed Forces the importance of there being no fall-off in apprenticeship intake?

Mr. Pattie: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. But I say again that we are interested in the requisite and appropriate degree of motivation. While we obviously get more applications in areas of high unemployment, that does not necessarily mean that we get more recruits from those areas.

Careers Information Offices

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many careers information offices exist for each of the three Services at the present time.

Mr. Pattie: There are currently 241 careers information offices in the United Kingdom, of which 10 are tri-Service, 47 bi-Service and 184 single-Service. Of the single-Service offices, 27 are Royal Navy, 136 Army and 21 Royal Air Force.

Mr. Atkinson: At the risk of asking the obvious, what studies have been made into making all the outlets tri-Service outlets? Moreover, has my hon. Friend considered discussing with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the possibility of selling off all the careers service offices in favour of having an appropriate desk in each jobcentre?

Mr. Pattie: A study is currently in hand the central proposal of which is that the present network of 241 offices

to which I referred should be cut down to 190, of which about 80 will be shared. On the question of jobcentres, the CIOs, as we call them, are used for assessment and testing. We feel that when we get a potential recruit to that stage of an interview, it is better for this to be dealt with by someone with direct experience of the Armed Forces than by someone working in a jobcentre.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that at times there is considerable criticism when the public see three separate careers offices, one for each of the three Services, occupying prime sites in the centre of a town? Will he do everything possible to extend the number of tri-Service recruiting offices?

Mr. Pattie: As I indicated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), we are doing just that, although the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that very often it is not possible to relinquish leased premises without incurring a substantial penalty.

Mr. Hill: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the career officers should go into the schools more often to explain the opportunities for joining the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, since the youngster of today, who is particularly oriented to high technology, would welcome that information?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that is precisely the change of emphasis that we hope to see.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: When does the Minister expect there to be the 80 tri-Service offices to which he referred? What time scale has he in mind?

Mr. Pattie: Mainly because of the leasing considerations to which I referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test-(Mr. Hill), the operation is likely to take most of this decade.

Manpower

Mr. Trippier: asked the Steretary of State for Defence what has been the increase in uniformed manpower in the three Services since May 1979.

Mr. Pattie: There were 18,630 more men and women in the Armed Forces at 31 October 1980 than at 30 April 1979. Of this increase, 1,009 were attributable to the Royal Navy, 11,944 to the Army, and 5,677 to the Royal Air Force. This represents a 6 per cent. increase over the period.

Mr. Trippier: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Do those figures indicate that many of the vacancies in technical and specialist skills that we inherited from the previous Administration have now been filled?

Mr. Pattie: While recruiting last year was, with only one exception, the highest for the past 17 years, there is still a considerable way to go to make good the rather severe drain highly skilled personnel that we have had in recent years—in particular, engineers in the Royal Navy, fighter controllers in the Royal Air Force and certain other specialist skills among other ranks.

Mr. Park: Has recruitment to the Army been suspended?

Mr. Pattie: It is not true that recruitment has been suspended. Certain changes are made in the advertising campaign from time to time to take account of particular developments and considerations.

Offshore Protection Vessels

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is still satisfied that the offshore protection vessels already in service and under construction provide the best value for money for the task.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ross: If the Minister is looking for savings in his Department, which one assumes are to be made, is not this one area in which, as informed circles believe, savings can be made by using aircraft and ships which are already under construction or in use in other parts of the country, which could do the job more quickly? Can he tell us what sales have yet been achieved for any of the OPVs now under construction in British yards?

Mr. Speed: The two that are under construction at the moment are not yet in commission with the Royal Navy. I have seen them both. They represent a significant increase in capability over the Island class, which itself has done very well. I have no doubt at all that if we would stop knocking this design, which is a very good design, and back up Hall Russell which is building them, there is a very good export potential indeed, because these vessels can operate helicopters, have a very good endurance and a very good speed.

Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the greatest need at the moment in the fleet is for a smaller, robust and cheaper ship of about 2,000 tons which would have a helicopter-carrying capacity without a hangar capacity and that we could perhaps seek export orders in this regard as well?

Mr. Speed: My hon. Friend refers to the type 23 frigate. I am pursuing that with energy.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister concede that among the most important features of these vessels are increased speed and better sea-keeping capability?

Mr. Speed: Yes, Sir. That is the new Castle class OPV which is stabilised, twin screw and will have a 10,000-mile range.

Mr. George Robertson: Although most of Britain's defence needs are by their very nature hypothetical, the need to protect our fisheries and offshore installations is obvious, real and immediate. Will the Minister say whether the Ministry of Defence intends to cancel any future orders for small ships in the coming year?

Mr. Speed: No, Sir.

Merchant Navy

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he makes to use a merchant navy under the British flag as part of United Kingdom defence capability.

Mr. Speed: There are plans to take up a number of British merchant ships from trade to support a variety of defence operations including minelaying, minesweeping and reinforcement.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that in the last war thousands of British seamen lost their lives transporting food and troops all over the world? Does not the reduction of British ships sailing under the British flag—93 in last year alone—seriously weaken our defence capability? Will he consider spending just a small proportion of the defence budget on ensuring that a British Merchant Navy remains in existence?

Mr. Speed: That is not a matter for the defence budget. Notwithstanding the decline in the British merchant fleet, we are confident at the moment that all our requirements can be met. I hope that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will have heard some of his remarks.

Mr. Trotter: Can the Minister confirm that there are very close relationships between his Department and the General Council of British Shipping as to the war use of the Merchant Navy? Can he also tell us what progress has been made in respect of the intriguing idea of using helicopters from container ships, carrying the control and maintenance equipment in containers which could be put aboard very readily in case of war?

Mr. Speed: I can confirm that there is excellent co-operation between the General Council of British Shipping, my Department and other Government Departments. As to using helicopters from merchant ships, as I announced in the Navy debate, we are at present conducting a study into the possibility of using tankers for such a role. Container ships are another possibility. That study is continuing in my own Department.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it does not help to keep the British merchant fleet at the top of the league, where it should be, if British merchant seamen are on strike?

Mr. Speed: I would rather not comment on that. However, I certainly want to see a strong and viable British merchant fleet.

Tornado

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the total estimated cost of the Tornado programme; and how this compares with the original estimate at constant prices.

Mr. Pattie: The total production cost to the United Kingdom of an order for 220 production GR mark Is and 165 production F2s is now estimated to be £4,870 million at September 1980 price levels. At constant price levels the real increase in the estimated unit production costs of the GR mark I since the start of full development in May 1970 is about 25 per cent. and of the F2, which entered full development in July 1976, about 6 per cent.

Mr. Hooley: Do not reports from Germany seem to indicate that the cost of this machine is getting out of control? Are not the Government aware that it is quite absurd to suppose that the United Kingdom economy can carry the Tornado, the North Atlantic and protection of the Trident, BAOR, and protection of the air in Western Europe?

Mr. Pattie: It is interesting to note that, when a similar question was asked by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), the figures were 22 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively. I think that that is more than two years ago,


which indicates that the programme is by no means out of control. The Germans have had budgetary difficulties of their own.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no threat whatever to the production of Tornado either from the West German Government, or, indeed, his own Department, and that it will come on stream, as originally planned, in due course?

Mr. Pattie: Yes, I can confirm that.

Mr. Haynes: Are not the Secretary of State and his Ministers ashamed of the answer that we have just received? Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has recently come from a Department which has had business people knocking on the door for financial help to create jobs and to bring down unemployment—which was the promise which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made in the pre-election period—what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Pattie: We shall continue with the programme for this excellent aircraft, which supplies many thousands of jobs in advanced British industries.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that never in post-war Royal Air Force history has a single airframe been developed to fulfil such a wide multiplicity of roles? In those circumstances, is not it a great tribute to the design expertise of the industry and the versatility of the aircraft that it is as effective as it has proved to be in its service and testing to date?

Mr. Pattie: I welcome the opportunity to associate the Government with the remarks my hon. Friend has just made.

Mr. Snape: Are the Secretary of State and his ministerial team interested only in deluding themselves, or do they intend to delude the whole House? Can this country really afford projects such as Trident, the ECA and various expensive navy projects about which we have heard from the Minister, as well as paying for almost 400 of these extremely expensive aircraft? The Minister knows full well that something in that budget must go. Is it not about time that he came clean and told the house exactly where the Government's defence priorities lie?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend intends to make a statement at 3.30 pm if he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair.

Nuclear Warfare

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he makes of the likelihood of any conventional war in Europe extending into one in which nuclear weapons are used.

Mr. Nott: Our policy of deterrence is to prevent a war altogether, but if one were to occur I could not exclude the possibility that it would escalate into an exchange of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Roberts: If that is the case, and the Minister admits that a conventional war in Europe is likely to deteriorate into a nuclear war, why do we need such a build-up of conventional troops in Europe? If his policy—[Interruption.] It is strange that some of the main critics of my visit to Afghanistan went on all-expenses-paid trip

to South Africa as guests of the Government, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). If the Minister—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a fundamental rule in this House that everyone has a right to be heard.

Mr. Roberts: If the Minister believes that nuclear weapons will prevent a war, why do we need expenditure on such massive conventional forces?

Mr. Nott: To use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, the build-up of our conventional forces in Germany is considerably less than the recent build-up of the Russian forces in Afghanistan. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well indeed, our conventional forces are at present heavily outnumbered by those of the Warsaw Pact.

Mr. Nelson: Is not a better answer to the hon. Gentleman's question that if we seek to prevent war from escalating into nuclear conflict, a raising of the nuclear threshold is required, and for that reason it is absolutely essential that we adhere to the re-equipment programme which was set out in last year's White Paper and which should not be substantially affected by any statement today?

Mr. Nott: I have held my new job for only a week, and my hon. Friend seems to be after it already. I entirely agree with him. What he said about the nuclear threshold is absolutely correct, and I support every word that he said.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is not the prospect of a war remaining conventional from the beginning to the bitter end the most realistic and dangerous prospect that this country has to face? Does not the new Secretary of State agree that it is upon that hypothesis that the provision and preparation of our forces ought overwhelmingly to be based?

Mr. Nott: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must be prepared for any kind of war which might break out on the European front. The emphasis which he places upon our conventional forces—I well know his views—is one that I strongly support. But we must maintain a range of weapons from conventional through to theatre nuclear and strategic nuclear if we are to match the threat from the Warsaw Pact.

Trident

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress being made in relation to the Trident nuclear weapons system and the updating of contracting arrangements with the United States of America.

Mr. Nott: It has been agreed with the United States that the purchase of the Trident weapon system will be handled within the framework of the Polaris sales agreement. Under these arrangements the United Kingdom obtains the advantage of common contract prices with the United States Navy.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the Minister for that answer. Has he digested the speech his predecessor made on 16 December to the Royal United Services Institute relating to the nuclear weapons system of this country? Because of the time scale, can he indicate when an order for the first submarine is expected to be placed with British


Shipbuilders, because if that planning procedure is not carried out soon, the loading of these important United Kingdom yards will be prejudiced?

Mr. Nott: I have not yet digested that particular speech of my right hon. Friend, although I have read a great number of his speeches during the last few days. As to the programme for the building of nuclear submarines, I am conscious of the need to ensure a sensible loading in our shipyards. That is a matter which bears very much with me, not just for the Trident programme but for our general programme as a whole.

Mr. Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Rapier sale to the United States Air Force, which has been allowed to count as offset for the Trident purchase, has yet been finalised, or is it still being held up by some dispute over accommodation for the personnel concerned?

Mr. Nott: I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the agreement is close to finalisation but has not yet been completed.

Mr. Cryer: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how nuclear weapons defend freedom and liberty when their use will be undertaken by a small elite and will lead to the mass extermination of the people of this nation and elsewhere, whether they like it or not? What about the freedom to survive of those who choose not to support nuclear weapons?

Mr. Nott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the subject, but I cannot understand how unilateral nuclear disarmament by us can advance the cause of peace. All the evidence of the past 35 years makes clear that the Soviet Union acknowledges only strength. There is no occasion on which there has been evidence that unilateral weakness on our part would do anything other than encourage the Soviet Union in its aggressive intentions.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pilots who flew Spitfires and Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain were a small elite and that we should thank goodness for them?

Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. John: Is the likely price of £4½ billion to £5 billion the latest good estimate of the cost of the Trident, or has that already escalated? Do not many fear that the effect of acquiring Trident will be to narrow our defence contribution? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is why we oppose the acquisition of Trident? It makes no defence sense, quite apart from the other arguments.

Mr. Nott: As I said earlier, we must regard the Trident system as an integral part of our defences and not an addition to them. The estimate of the cost is exactly as my right hon. Friend gave it—about £4½ billion to £5 billion for four submarines spread over the period to the mid-1990s.

Defence Expenditure

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence approximately how much would be saved in the year 1980–81 if the proportion of the gross national or domestic product devoted to the United Kingdom arms programme were reduced to the average proportion of the other European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments.

Mr. Nott: Between £3½ billion and £4½ billion.

Mr. Allaun: Is that not an astounding figure? We are spending £3½ billion to £4½ billion a year more than the other Western European countries of NATO. Why should a poorer country spend a larger proportion of its wealth in that way than the richer countries?

Mr. Nott: The manner of assessing defence expenditure varies. We find ourselves about midway in average expenditure per head. As I shall be explaining in my statement later, our contribution to NATO is extremely good. We should be proud of the fact that we are playing a major deterrent role on behalf of the Alliance.

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that it is irrelevant to compare Britain's defence expenditure with that of our allies, because they are not the threat? Is it not deeply disturbing that for the past 10 years the Soviet Union has been spending three times as large a proportion of its GNP on armaments as have NATO nations?

Mr. Nott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The need for us is to ensure that our front-line capability is continually strengthened in order to face a massive threat from the Warsaw Pact. That is the reason for our present level of defence expenditure. I shall explain in my statement what we intend to do in 1981–82.

Mr. Marks: Are not the Prime Minister and every other departmental Minister always talking about spending what we can afford? Will the right hon. Gentleman take a serious look at our defence expenditure? Present contributions to NATO are based on gross national products of the early 1950s. If we are to talk sense about economics, ought we not to examine that fact very seriously?

Mr. Nott: In the last resort, we are talking about defending our liberties. That is what our defence policy is intended to do.

Mr. Amery: Does my right hon. Friend recall that Mr. Attlee's Government spent 11 per cent. of GNP on defence and that of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who was regarded by many as the arch appeaser, spent 6 per cent? We are not doing very well in comparison with either of those gentlemen.

Mr. Nott: I do not know that I should necessarily wish to compare myself with either of those gentleman, but I certainly take my right hon. Friend's point. Our present expenditure can be compared, as a percentage of GDP, with that of all our allies and can be compared favourably with the expenditure of the United States. The proportion of our GDP devoted to defence is rising, not falling.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister (Engagements)

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of the Romanian National Assembly. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Bill Hayden, the Leader of the Opposition in Australia.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Will she find time in the course of her busy day to consider the fact that in recent years issues of gilt-edged stock have amounted to about 90 per cent. of total issues made? Does she regard that as a satisfactory proportion? What steps will she take to ensure that the State takes fewer of the nation's resources?

The Prime Minister: Clearly, it is not satisfactory that the State should pre-empt such a large part of total capital issues. It means that we have to reduce our spending, or try to reduce our borrowing—there are other ways of doing that—or try to raise more of Government debt through the ordinary national savings institutions, so that we release a bigger proportion of the market to raise capital for industry.

Mr. Foot: In view of the very strong rumours that The Times and The Sunday Times may be acquired by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that if that were to occur she would immediately refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will she undertake that she will ask the commission to report with extreme urgency, in view of the threat to those newspapers and their possible extinction in March?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has so far received no application for consent to transfer The Times newspapers. If he does receive such an application, he will have to consider the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady go a little further in trying to protect the position of some great newspapers in this country? Does she recollect that when Lord Thomson—Mr. Roy Thomson as he was at the time—acquired The Times alone in the first place, that acquisition was referred to the Monopolies Commission and pledges of independence had to be given? Will she tell us clearly that the Government will refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission for an urgent report on the matter, in the interest of the newspapers and all their customers in this country?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it advisable to say precisely what one would do before an application has even been received. We shall wait to see whether the Secretary of State receives an application and then we shall apply the law as it is, and apply it precisely.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my right hon. Friend heard the sad news of the death this morning of Lord Amory, that most distinguished statesman, former Member of this House and public and private benefactor?

The Prime Minister: I gladly join my hon. Friend's tribute to Lord Amory, who had such a very distingushed career in this House and, as my hon. Friend said, was a uniquely distinguished person in the amount that he did for all good causes.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister, at some suitable point in the day, take the opportunity to

congratulate President Reagan on his inauguration and to warn him that the type of monetarist policies pursued by her Government lead only to failure, producing falling productivity and massive unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to join with the hon. Gentleman and, I believe, with the rest of the House in congratulating President Reagan on his inauguration. I look forward very much to working with him. I would point out that the policies of this Government have brought inflation down extremely rapidly.

Mr. Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the newspapers today that an industrial tribunal found BL guilty of indirect racialism because it demanded that people applying for jobs should fill in the form in English? Is this not absurd? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that English is still the language of England?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware—[Interruption.]—that, in spite of her new year resolution—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what exactly has been said from below the Gangway, but I see wide, open mouths and I hear a lot of noise.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in spite of her new year resolution, there was another Government leak at the weekend when the Secretary of State for Employment forecast that this month's unemployment figures would be appalling? What will she do about him? More important, what will she do about them?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I do not make forecasts about unemployment figures. They will be out in due time.

Mr. George Gardiner: No doubt the Prime Minister has already given time today, as in previous days, to considering the position of those Britons still held prisoner in Iran. How hopeful is she that the developments concerning the United States hostages can be followed up constructively to secure the release of the Britons?

The Prime Minister: We try continually to secure access to the British subjects, who have been detained for five months in Iran without any charge brought against them. We shall continue our efforts by all means possible. I hope that the release of the United States hostages will augur well for the release of our own people.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the right hon. Lady inform the House why she refused to meet a deputation today from the "Dignity in Death" campaign which presented a petition at No. 10 Downing Street? Is she aware that over 1 million people have signed this petition for an increase in the death grant? Does she not feel that she could have spared a little time to listen to the pleas of these people?

The Prime Minister: It is not possible for me to receive all people and all deputations who would like to see me. I believe it is reasonable that petitions of that kind should go to the Minister who is directly in charge, so that he, on behalf of the Government, may receive them.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some time ago.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing indignation in the country at the continuing burden on the taxpayer of the nationalised industries, many of which are monopolies? Does she agree that fair competition is the real friend of the customer? If so, will she take further steps to denationalise and de-monopolise wherever possible?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The private sector gives the consumer a much better bargain than the goods and services of the nationalised industry sector. That is shown by the figures over the past six years. The figures show that the increase in prices between 1974 and 1980 in the nationalised industries has been 239 per cent. compared with an increase in the private sector of about 168 per cent. We shall certainly take my hon. Friend's advice on further deregulation and denationalisation as soon as we can.

Mr. Soley: What evidence can the Prime Minister give to the House today to show that tax cuts awarded to the better off by her Government about a year ago have gone into productive investment within the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that some of the export industries, many of them small, had performed extremely well. I would have thought also that much of the excellent performance of management was due to increased incentives given by those tax cuts.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will the Prime Minister remind the House that last year we had a visible surplus on trade with the European Community compared with a deficit of £3,000 million in 1979? Is that not a good augury for our relations with Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The balance has been improving. Added to that, we usually have a balance on invisible account. I hope that this augurs well for our future relations with the Community.

Mr. Foster: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today persuading her Secretary of State for Education and Science to instruct his Department to have a much greater involvement in the youth opportunities programme which, in the present situation, is the one hope for educational advance under her miserable Administration?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The youth opportunities programme is one of the sectors that has received great priority under this Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have increased the number of places available to about 440,000, which I hope will give jobs to far more young people than would otherwise have been possible.

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some time ago.

Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to congratulate the several thousand steel workers in my constituency who voted so overwhelmingly in support of the MacGregor plan? Will she interpret this vote as a clear indication of realism on the shop floor, also evident at British Leyland?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We were most encouraged by the result of the ballot. I agree with the conclusions that my hon. Friend draws. There is greater realism. More people are realising that their job prospects and their future lie in co-operation with the company for which they work.

Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the clobbering that the Government have given to the disabled over the past 18 months, does the right hon. Lady not think that the reception that she gave them last night was an example of brazen humbug and cant?

The Prime Minister: Whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks, that view was not shared by all the people there, who thoroughly enjoyed the reception. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was at the invitation of the committee in charge of the International Year of Disabled People that I gave that reception. Those who came were most appreciative. So was I. It was a chance to say "Thank you" to many of them for the work that they do.

Mr. Murphy: Will the Prime Minister find time today to agree that both the recent fall in inflation and the rise in the standard of living emphasise the success of her Government's policies?

The Prime Minister: Yes. An absolutely essential precondition for expansion is to get the rate of inflation down so that there is enough confidence for destocking to end and new investment to begin. There has undoubtedly been a rise in the standard of living over the country as a whole last year by an average of 2 per cent., and for those in work by an average of 4 per cent.

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady is so boastful about the Government's dealings with inflation, will she now answer the question that she has not answered before? When exactly does she think that she will have the rate of inflation down to the figure it was at before she started putting it up?

The Prime Minister: On the six-month rate, it is already very much below—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may not like it, but that is the fact. On the six-month rate, it is very much below the level that we inherited—very much below.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady now be good enough to answer the question? When will the annual rate be down to the figure that it was at before she and her Government started putting it up?

The Prime Minister: If we—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".]—take the Healey mechanism, multiply the six-month figure and annualise it, according to the Healey basis it is already very much below. What the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to conceal is that prices were rising very quickly and very substantially when the Labour Government left office. They were rising very quickly and very substantially, and the Labour Government delayed a number of price increases by referring them to the Prices Commission as well as by delaying increases such as increases in the price of milk.

Oral Answers to Questions — Questions to the Prime Minister

Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that only two questions to the Prime Minister out of 42 tabled asked


anything other than that the engagements for today be listed by the Prime Minister? This makes a mockery of the questioning of the Prime Minister, which should be better structured and ordered. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this matter be referred to the Procedure Committee and discussed through the usual channels?

Mr. Speaker: I have said before to the House that I think that we have spoilt Prime Minister's Question Time. However, it is for hon. Members to table substantive questions on the Order Paper.

Defence Estimates 1980–81

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a statement about expenditure on defence.
In the financial year 1981–82 defence expenditure should rise to £9,753 million at 1980 survey prices. This takes account of the reduction of £200 million in planned expenditure announced earlier by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This figure is about 8 per cent. more in real terms than the defence outturn in 1978–79, the last year of the previous Government. This year we are likely to exceed the 3 per cent. NATO aim, but until the outturn is clear we cannot assess the distribution of growth between this year and next. In cash terms, although the cash limit has not yet been finalised, next year's defence budget is expected to be of the order of £12¼ billion—more than £1 billion higher than the budget this year.
The scale of the increase, in relation to the containment of expenditure on other programmes, fully accords with the Government's expressed determination, which I reaffirm today, of giving the highest priority to our defence in the face of the growing threat from the Warsaw Pact. It also represents an increase in defence expenditure per head at a time when the proportion of our GDP devoted to defence is already much higher than that of our main European allies, and close to that of the United States.
Let me make it plain beyond doubt that I share without qualification the objectives stated by my predecessor in the House to sustain and improve the front-line quality of our forces and of our contribution to the Alliance, which remains the cornerstone of our security and the ultimate safeguard of our freedom against any aggression.
In accordance with these objectives, I can confirm that next year the major programme of improvements will continue. Even after trimming recruitment there will be over 5,000 more Regulars in our Services than in this financial year. A nuclear-powered fleet submarine, two new air-defence destroyers, an anti-submarine frigate and several other vessels will enter service; other new warship orders, including anti-submarine carriers, nuclear-powered submarines, destroyers and frigates, together with major maritime weapon systems such as Sting Ray and Sub-Harpoon, will be moving forward; substantial further orders for ships and other naval equipment will be placed; and the Trident programme is under way.
The Army's new Challenger tank, the new armoured personnel carrier, the Milan anti-tank and Rapier and Blowpipe air defence systems and the Ptarmigan and Clansman communications systems continue in procurement. Deliveries under the very large Tornado programme, the core of the RAF's future capability, will be accelerating.
Contrary to some reports, development work on the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile will continue, although further consideration will be needed before its place in the programme can be confirmed. Large sums will be spent on the Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft, improvement of our Harrier and Jaguar capability, and air-to-air defence missiles. We spend a bigger proportion of our defence budget on major equipment than any other NATO country. Next year we shall spend over £5 billion on equipment, which will sustain hundreds of thousands of jobs, many in the highest fields of technology.
Nevertheless, there remain hard choices for next year and further ahead. The problems are well known to the House but they are worth recalling briefly. The real cost of defence equipment, much of it inevitably highly sophisticated to counter the threat, continues to rise. The recession has led industry to concentrate more heavily on defence work, which means that certain equipment has come forward faster than we expected. This is to the benefit of our Services but has continuing effects on our cash flow. With so much of the programme already committed it is not easy to make adjustments quickly.
Defence, like other Departments, has to make adjustments every year, in all sorts of ways, to fit its programme to planned expenditure, but for the reasons that I have given the scale this year is more extensive than usual. In order to avoid continuing speculation and uncertainty harmful to the Services and to industry, I think it right to give the House before the defence White Paper is published an early indication of the character of these adjustments.
The main changes that I propose accelerate the phasing out of some older equipment, the deferment of certain equipment procurements, the trimming of our works and training programmes, and further reduction of overheads; in essence, to concentrate our resources where they are most valuable.
Some older ships of the Royal Navy will be sold or scrapped; HMS "Bulwark" will be disposed of about six months earlier than planned, and the planned reductions in the Vulcan force and Shackleton airborne early warning aircraft and the rundown of Canberra photographic reconnaissance squadrons will be accelerated.
There will be some adjustment to the forward warship construction programme, which will involve the slowing down of a number of orders. Logistic support road vehicles, Jetstream and Hawk aircraft orders will be deferred and the Skyflash Mark 1 missile will continue, but instead of the Skyflash Mark 2 we will proceed with a programme to demonstrate a new technology for short-range air-to-air missiles.
To save overheads, No. 41 Commando will merge with the other commandos, without reduction in the present overall strength of the Royal Marines and with a continuing Royal Marine presence in Deal for the time being. The Naval communications squadron at Lee-on-Solent will be disbanded. The extra Lightning squadron will not be formed as planned, but we shall provide for a squadron to be found out of training units, which could rapidly be made operational in emergency.
I turn now, briefly, to the future beyond next year's Estimates. In accordance with the expressed objectives of NATO, it is our aim to continue from the revised 1981–82 base line an annual increase in defence expenditure in real terms in the region of 3 per cent. Even with an increase in expenditure, however, we face, as do other countries, a major task in matching resources to our clear defence needs—a task made more difficult for us than for other countries because of our low growth.
Talk of apocalyptic choices between key defence tasks is wide of the mark, but we must, over the next year or so, look realistically at our programmes in order to match them to the resources that may be available. We shall do this in an Alliance context and, we hope, in close concert with our allies. But let it be clear that, whatever our


economic problems, the maintenance of effective security within and through the Alliance remains an overriding commitment of this Government.

Mr. Brynmor John: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which, contrary to the Government's election pledges, is a tiny recognition of the reality that defence is bound up with the economy. It cannot be insulated from the disastrous performance of the economy under the Government of which the right hon. Member is a member.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions about detail. First, he itemised the planned saving of £200 million against commitment. What total saving does he envisage, taking into account the equipment rundown and the deferment of certain programmes? Secondly, what are the employment consequences, especially in view of the cancellation of certain projects? Thirdly, what will happen to the £400 million overspend that the Ministry of Defence managed to achieve this year? Will it be written off, will it be found out of the MOD budget, or, worse still, will it be found from some other Department's requirements?
Upon what basis have the cuts that have been chosen been singled out? Is it because equipment options are easier to cut than other matters? Has there been any consideration of the defence priorities involved? If so, what reasons led to the cancellation of the projects mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Will he spell out the reasons that led him to choose those projects?
Should not the right hon. Gentleman, in accordance with the last paragraph of his statement, now begin a careful examination of our defence expenditure and the commitments that we have undertaken to determine a sensible approach to NATO in future? Is that not better than simply maintaining all our commitments on a reduced and less effective scale? The whole history of defence planning has been equality of misery—every Service has taken its proportionate share of cuts. Is it not about time that we seriously considered the priorities in the light of the changed circumstances, to determine which are the most important?
Will the right hon. Gentleman please examine again the Trident project, the acquisition of which will add little or nothing to the Alliance's deterrent but which will probably increasingly prevent our carrying out our wider range of tasks that are of more use to NATO? If we wish to be a member of the Alliance, is it not time that we gave up national power dreams that are becoming increasingly unreal and sought to provide the kind of defence that is most helpful to the Alliance?

Mr. Nott: By the end of the next financial year defence expenditure will have risen by about 8 per cent. in real terms from the time that the Government took office. That is fully in accordance with the expressed commitment of my party at the last election. The reduction of £200 million, which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the only reduction that has been made in the planned defence budget. Of course, some adjustments were made in the planned programme. There always are. Every Department has to make adjustments to bring its planned programme back into line with what has already been published, but the only cut—if I may use that word—in what was anyhow

a substantial planned increase was the sum of £200 million referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
The employment consequences of the measures that I have announced will be that some jobs that would otherwise have been created by the additional planned expenditure will not now be created. If I understand the Opposition party's defence policy correctly, thousands of jobs would be lost. We are talking about a number of job opportunities that will not now arise as we had hoped.
The Ministry of Defence probably will have an overspend this year, but we do not yet know the figure. We shall have to await the outturn and determine what action needs to be taken.
My announcement basically concerns itself with a faster phasing out of older equipment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House left me some useful work. I was able to choose from a range of options that he had considered with great care in conjunction with the Chiefs of Staff. We are seeking to phase out older equipment at a faster rate. We have done our best to preserve orders for new equipment that are coming forward, and as much of the procurement programme as possible. We have had to slow down a few of the shipbuilding orders, which otherwise we had hoped to bring forward this year. All those reductions have been made in the light of the defence priorities that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the Chiefs of Staff and I regard as essential.
We shall, of course, examine the long-term position. I said that in my statement. But, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) knows perfectly well, an examination takes place every year as a matter of course. That will take place, as it always does, between April and June this year.
The decision on Trident has been made. It has been announced and it will remain. It is the most cost-effective way to provide for a strategic nuclear deterrent. That decision will not be changed.

Mr. John: I must press the Secretary of State on two matters. First, did he intend to imply that there would be no savings as a result of the phasing out of older equipment? If so, he should say that clearly. His statement implied that he hoped for savings over and above the savings in the equipment programme. If that is so, he should put a figure on it. Secondly, although my party's defence policy is of overweening interest to the Secretary of State, we are equally interested in his party's defence policy. What are the employment implications of the slowdown in warship orders? Why does he not put a figure on the likely redundancies so that the loyal civilian staff in the defence establishments may know what blow will hit them?

Mr. Nott: Savings will be made, and I have already explained where they will fall. We are talking about a cut of £200 million in what we had originally planned. Savings are clearly embodied in bringing down that figure.
On the question of employment in the shipbuilding industry, we must discuss with British Shipbuilders how to allocate next year's programme among the yards. We can then make a firm estimate of how many jobs will be affected. The number of jobs that will be affected by the Government's defence policy—which will be increased by 8 per cent. in real terms over three years—is nothing like the number of jobs that will be affected by the policies advocated by the different Opposition parties.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I assure my right hon. Friend that the confirmation of new orders and the necessary phasing out of obsolescent equipment will be warmly welcomed by the Armed Forces. When can we expect a replacement for diesel-electric submarines?

Mr. Nott: Tenders for the coming year under consideration include nuclear-powered fleet submarines, two frigates, and minesweeping trawlers, among other vessels. I do not know to which diesel-powered submarines my hon. Friend refers, but I shall certainly answer his question.

Dr. David Owen: Is it not clear that this country cannot continue to make both a major contribution to BAOR and a major maritime contribution to the Western Alliance, and that a strategic choice will have to be made? Will the Secretary of State confirm that if he is to reduce employment opportunities in defence establishments by 32,000 over the next three years he will protect those parts of the country where unemployment is already extremely high, and particularly the South-West region, which he knows well?

Mr. Nott: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about employment opportunities. I take full note of his point about regional employment.
I have had an opportunity to read the right hon. Gentleman's views on future defence strategy. I read with interest the pamphlet that he published a short time ago. In the normal long-term review that takes place every year in the Ministry of Defence I shall take into account many of the points that he makes. However, the stark choice that he poses between a maritime capability and the central front is, frankly, unrealistic. We must maintain balanced forces, although there may be changes in emphasis between the two, and those are matters that we shall have to discuss with the alliance. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was already in close consultation with our Allies on the subject. I hope to remain so.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The Minister earlier referred to our relatively favourable defence contribution, in terms of GDP, compared with that of our allies, which is known to all of us. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will tell us, in the form of a written answer, what that comparison would be in terms of per capita expenditure. Secondly, he reaffirmed, to our great pleasure, the determination to press ahead with Trident. Can he yet indicate when we shall have an opportunity to debate Trident and reaffirm the decision specifically by a majority vote in the Commons?

Mr. Nott: I have already told the House that per capita expenditure on defence will rise next year on the basis of the figures that I have given. As my hon. Friend knows, the previous defence White Paper contained a table that set out the comparison of this country with others. At that time, I believe, that we came somewhere in the middle on expenditure per head, although we come right at the top of the table in expenditure in terms of GDP.
I would welcome a debate on Trident, subject to arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can make. I have asked him whether we may wait a week or two so that I can do my homework. As soon as I have done it, I should welcome a debate. It is important to have one as soon as possible.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Secretary of State placed great stress on front-line capability. Will he bear in mind that in any but the briefest conflict our survival and victory would depend very largely upon our second and third line—our industrial reserves, reserves of manpower, training and training capability? Will he be careful not to be mesmerised by the nuclear theology that prevails in NATO?

Mr. Nott: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am far from being mesmerised by anything, except, occasionally, him. I entirely agree that our reserve forces—our second and third line behind our forward troops—are vital. We shall be spending more next year on the Territorial Army, and I shall be giving great attention to our reserve forces.

Mr. Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone on the Conservative Benches would like to congratulate him on picking up his present portfolio? The way that he dealt with questions earlier made it clear to the House that he is a worthy successor to our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who I believe should allow time for a debate in due course about Trident. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what he has announced is merely a particularisation of decisions that have already been made, which should help to dispel any idea that he has been appointed as a defence expenditure hatchet or kukri man?

Mr. Nott: I cannot imagine how anyone could have seen me in such a role. That we all acquire such labels is a cross that we have to bear. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I shall be as dedicated as my right hon. Friend to preserving and improving the front-line capability of our forces. If I may say so, the task that he performed when he held my office was a tremendous one. I shall continue to rely on his advice and help.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State assure us that if Trident is to continue—which we must regret—he will try to spread the work load over the different yards? Can he also assure us that the Vulcan bombers will not be phased out, at least before the end of 1983? Can he give us a bit more information on the updating of Harrier? Is Lee-on-Solent to be closed? Can he assure us that there will be no further moratoriums on defence spending such as those of last August, which put many component manufacturers in difficulty?

Mr. Nott: The spreading of the shipbuilding programme load is, in the last resort, for British Shipbuilders. My Department will keep in the closest touch with British Shipbuilders to try to make sure that new orders go to yards which are, first, cost effective but which also provide necessary employment opportunities.
I said in my statement that we were having to bring forward the phasing out of older equipment, including certain Vulcan bombers, rather earlier than we had planned. We are talking about an effective reduction from seven Vulcan squadrons to six next year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Vulcan is becoming an expensive aeroplane to maintain and operate.
The replacement for Harrier is under consideration. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, we shall be considering the matter fairly shortly.
Lee-on-Solent will close. That is a decision that has been taken.

Mr. Julian Amery: My right hon. Friend's statement will require careful analysis, but is he aware of the historical background against which he makes it? Lord Salisbury, in the previous century, accepted the resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill, who wanted to cut the Defence Estimates. Mr. Harold Macmillan accepted the resignation of Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, who similarly tried to cut the Defence Estimates. This is the first time that the Treasury team has managed to oust a defence Minister. Will my right hon. Friend realise that, while we wish him the best of luck in his new appointment, it is up to him to convince the Conservative Party, the House and the country that it does not mean a serious retrenchment in defence expenditure?

Mr. Nott: It will always be a privilege to receive fatherly advice from my right hon. Friend. I shall look forward to receiving it in defence debates. However, I am not aware of any resignations that have taken place. I am not sure that the historical analogy is wholly appropriate to the move of my right hon. Friend to be Leader of the House and my translation to the Defence Ministry. I have not been a member of any Treasury team, if that is the suggestion. I was not a member of the Treasury;. I was a distinguished President of the Board of Trade.
Perhaps I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. I and not the Treasury will be in charge of the Ministry of Defence, but I am sure that we shall work closely together. In the end, we are all on the same side.

Dr. John Gilbert: As all the programmes that the right hon. Gentleman boasts of as remaining unmutilated by his statement were carried on by the predecessor Administration, what news, if any, can he give the House of new programmes to modernise Her Majesty's Armed Forces during the two years that his Government have been in office?

Mr. Nott: I read out a long list of programmes that are continuing next year. An increase in defence expenditure of 8 per cent. in real terms over three years, at a time when our gross domestic product has not been rising, is a substantial indication of the high priority that this Government give to the defence of our country.

Mr. Michael Mates: In the light of my right hon. Friend's statement, containing much detail that will need to be examined, will he take this opportunity to confirm in simple and unequivocal terms the statement that was made by the present Leader of the House on 28 October, that the Government remain committed to a 3 per cent. increase this year, next year and the year after?

Mr. Nott: When the White Paper on public expenditure is published in March it will show that for future years we shall be planning an increase in defence expenditure of 3 per cent. in real terms from the adjusted base from which we shall now be operating. We are making the £200 million cut in planned expenditure. That is not a cut in real terms; it is a cut in a plan. From the revised base, we shall be planning 3 per cent. real growth in volume in our defence expenditure in future years. That will be clearly shown when the White Paper on public expenditure is published in March.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call five hon. Members from each side of the House. That represents another 10 questions, which will be a good run.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State take a direct personal interest in the possibilities of further economies in defence procurement through greater co-operation in procurement policies within NATO? In particular, will he bear in mind the unanimous strictures of the Public Accounts Committee about the Sting Ray programme, which is an example of national procurement policy being pursued with apparent disregard of NATO's lack of interest in this weapons system? We are spending nearly £1,000 million when an alternative system—an American system—at a cost of £200 million is available.

Mr. Nott: Of course I shall be looking for sensible economies in defence procurement. The Defence Ministry does that, whichever party is in power. It is part of the job. With regard to Sting Ray, I was aware of the arguments for the development of a British weapons system or the purchase of an American one. It was decided to continue with Sting Ray, and I am delighted to say that it is going extremely well. It is a British weapon that is still in procurement, and it is performing very successfully.
I made an error in an earlier comment. I said that Lee-on-Solent was closing. I meant to say that the naval communications squadron at Lee-on-Solent was closing.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all Conservative Members must welcome the Government's stress on priority for defending the nation's interests. I should like to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend's predecessor in defending that cause. Will my right hon. Friend now take up the cudgels at the Ministry of Defence and make sure that there is an overhaul of the contracting and budgeting procedures, which many hon. Members regard as the major reason for the present situation, where some programmes still remain unconfirmed? Is he aware that there is no wish on the Government Benches to see projects such as Sea Eagle and Skyflash jeopardised because of an obsolete contracting procedure that prevents them from going ahead?

Mr. Nott: The reasons why there is likely to be some overrun in planned defence expenditure this year are well known to the House, and I mentioned them in my statement. These are exceptional conditions, and it cannot be right publicly to condemn those who operate the system for a series of problems that arose for a variety of reasons, many of them outside their control. Of course, I shall be interested to learn about the contracting and budgeting systems in the Ministry of Defence. So far I have had only four days in my new office, and I have not yet examined this question. It will take me a few days to understand, but I shall look at it with interest.

Mr. David Lambie: Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision to defer orders for Jetstream will be received with concern and anger in the West of Scotland, especially by the work force of the British Aerospace factory at Prestwick? In view of the high rate of unemployment, which is approaching 20 per cent., in the immediate area and the reported statement that the Secretary of State for Scotland supported the order, which was also supported by the Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider the effect of this disastrous decision on the prospects of the work force at Prestwick? If he is not willing to do that, will he give a letter of intent


to British Aerospace for future orders of this aeroplane in order to allow the civilian version of the aeroplane to continue to be manufactured?

Mr. Nott: I am sorry that we cannot go forward with the plans for Jetstream at present. It is a communications aircraft, and, having had to look at the priorities within the defence programme, we considered it more important to enhance our front-line capability than to concentrate on communications aircraft such as Jetstream. I accept that it is a good aircraft and, like the hon. Gentleman, I regret that it has not been possible to go ahead with the programme as we have hoped.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and thank him for his statement, but may I press him a little on the question of Sea Eagle? Is he aware that it is far in advance of any other similar weapon elsewhere, that it can be financed by British Aerospace Dynamics, and that it must be cheaper than cancellation over the next two years? Will he look seriously at the matter, because it would be a grave error to throw this project overboard and buy foreign? That would disperse a great capability and a team of men that has worked hard on the weapon.

Mr. Nott: I have already studied the importance of Sea Eagle, and I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says. It is well in advance of developments in many other countries, and it is very important to British Aerospace Dynamics. I am conscious of all the points that my hon. Friend has made. I cannot say at present that Sea Eagle will necessarily continue for all time, through to production, because there are several hundred million pounds still to be spent on Sea Eagle before we get the weapons system. That includes production costs as well as further procurement costs.
Therefore, Sea Eagle must take its place, together with other weapons systems, in the normal annual review that I shall conduct between April and August. Until I have examined all the systems, as part of the general review—the long-term costings—that all Defence Ministers make, I cannot confirm that Sea Eagle will remain in the programme after that study. However, I assure my hon. Friend that it will continue in procurement at present.

Mr. Bruce George: Will the Secretary of State pass on my congratulations to his advisers, whose verbal and statistical dexterity—indeed, sleight of hand—may convince those who wish to be convinced that Tory performance matches up to its rhetoric? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to use the next four days as busily as he has used the last four days in convincing himself that Britain's maintenance of balanced forces is likely to be detrimental to NATO, because we are likely to end up by performing very badly all four functions to which we are currently committed?

Mr. Nott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we are conducting all these matters within the context of the NATO Alliance. Without co-operation and full agreement within NATO there can be no defence of this country against the Warsaw Pact countries. The NATO Alliance is fundamental to us. If, in discussion with our NATO allies, there are changes made in emphasis between

one role and another, I still think, as I said earlier, that the maintenance of balanced forces by this country is enormously important. We are still a sovereign country and we must look to our own defences as a nation. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but balanced forces will always be very important to us.
The commitment of the Government to increasing defence expenditure is clear. As I said, over the three-year period it will have increased by 8 per cent. in real terms. I cannot be certain of the increase that will be made by our NATO allies, and our increase may well prove to be greater than that of our allies. I do not know their figures, but I doubt whether many of them will be higher than ours.

Sir John Langford-Holt: In my right hon. Friend's statement, and in one of his answers to a supplementary question, he announced his intention to maintain the strength of the front-line capacity of the defence Services. Will he assure me that there is no conflict between that statement and the statement that he made concerning the amalgamation of 41 Royal Marine Commando with other commando units?

Mr. Nott: The amalgamation of the commando units will bring up to nearer full strength the other commandos. We are not at this moment reducing the number of men in the Royal Marine Commando. It is a merger; we are bringing the commandos in Deal in with the others. I take my hon. Friend's point about the strength of the Royal Marine Commando and I would be happy to discuss the matter with him. One of the problems is that the barracks at Deal are extremely expensive to maintain, and we can make economies by bringing about the merger without any reduction in the strength of the Royal Marine Commando at the present moment.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Did not the Secretary of State, in answer to an earlier question, admit that it would save Britain between £3½ billion and £4½ billion a year if we reduced our share of expenditure on arms to the level of the other European NATO countries? Did not he also say that our per capita expenditure was being increased? Will not the additional 2½ or 3 per cent. increase per annum—at a time when other services are being savagely slashed—encourage the hawks against the doves within the Kremlin and speed up the arms race?

Mr. Nott: I cannot imagine how we can obtain peace in the world except by strength. The hon. Gentleman's view, as I understand it, is that by weakness we shall somehow lead the Russians to cut back on the arms race. I find that a totally inexplicable point of view. We are likely to be spending more than some of our European NATO allies as a proportion of our gross domestic product, but it is to the Warsaw Pact's increasing threat that we should look, as my hon. Member the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) said at Question Time today. There is no point in our looking at each other the Whole time. We must look at the threat, and we must encourage our NATO allies to do as much as we do ourselves.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be room in his Estimates for the United Kindom to play a part outside Europe in the common defence of the West? When he has had a little more time to study the matter, will he advise the House whether he thinks the method of cash limits is appropriate to defence expenditure?

Mr. Nott: It is desirable that we should maintain the capacity for a flexible force. By the very nature of our position we shall be providing political force by our ability to respond in different parts of the world, in conjunction with our allies. The size of whatever support we may be able to give will depend on the circumstances, but I agree that it is important that we should give that political support to our NATO allies and to the United States.
I have read with interest the comments on cash limits made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Even among colleagues and good friends, we sometimes put slightly different emphases on these matters. The cash limit system is absolutely fundamental. We must keep to cash limits. Unless we respect money as well as volume, we cannot conduct our affairs sensibly. I agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend, that it is very difficult for the Ministry of Defence, with an enormous procurement programme, always to get its expenditure absolutely within its cash limits each year. It is difficult for other Departments to do so, too. But cash limits are very important.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As the 26 Command REME workshop, in my constituency in Stirling, has a fairly large number of very good civilian jobs—and also provides very good apprenticeships and engineering training for youngsters leaving school in the Stirling-Falkirk area—may I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that there is no intention to close down or in any way to interfere with the work of the 26 Command REME workshop?

Mr. Nott: I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that I know of the existence of that unit but so far I have not discovered it in my studies. Now that he has drawn it to my attention—I am sure that it is a very important unit—I shall study it with care.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his timely statement, which spells out in statistics as well as words our commitment to defending this country. May I draw his attention in particular to warships? Will he assure us that the front-line strength, in terms of the number of warships, will not be reduced as a result of the scrapping of older warships and the deferment of new ones to which he referred?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is important for British Shipbuilders that there should be a continuing programme? Would it not be sensible to have a five-year programme, as in America—bearing in mind that in America the President tends to put most of the ships into the fourth year?
Finally, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the export prospects of different types of warship and bear that

very much in mind in discussions with the Navy? The new type of submarine to which reference has been made is not yet in production and has therefore lost orders in a large part of the world to the German submarines.

Mr. Nott: I entirely agree that we are not selling nearly enough warships overseas. I have seen that all round the world as Secretary of State for Trade. We have not sold any major warships for several years, and we must put that right.
The announcement that I made will mean that there will be some reduction in the number of warships available, because we are phasing out some of the older ships. Some of them are more than 20 years old. Unless we phase out some of the older equipment we shall not have room within the programme to bring forward new warships.
We have ordered eight warships for the Royal Navy since we came into office. My hon. Friend knows what they are. In the coming year, tenders will be under consideration for a nuclear-powered fleet submarine, two frigates and minesweeping trawlers, so that the shipbuilding programme will carry forward. Unfortunately, we have had to slow it down to some extent because it was simply impossible to do all that we would wish to do in 1981–82 and yet keep within our programme. But we are going forward with tenders for the coming year.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would help hon. Members if he could make a statement on the effect of these changes on employment in various parts of the country? Naturally, I have in mind in particular the Bristol area.

Mr. Nott: We must decide about shipping orders and whether we can make any in the coming year. Tenders are being sought. Until all this has been discussed with British Shipbuilders it is difficult to know what the impact will be on employment. I do not wish to pretend that today's statement will not involve the loss of job opportunities. Of course it will. However, given the very substantial increase in the volume of defence expenditure, it does not behove the Labour Party to criticise us about jobs. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Opposition, but, given the 8 per cent. increase in real terms over three years, we cannot be criticised for causing the loss of jobs.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Orders of the Day — European Assembly Elections Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair.]

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 2 TO THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS ACT 1978

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I beg to move amendment. No. 3, in page 3, line 7, at end insert
(5) In paragraph 5(2)(b) of that Schedule, the words 'one month' shall be omitted and replaced by the words 'two months'.
The amendment relates to the period within which representations may be made to a Boundary Commission in relation to any recommendations published by the commission on European Assembly constituencies. At present, the law requires the commission to consider any representations within one month of the publication of proposals whether those proposals consist of provisional or revised recommendations, or whether they relate to parliamentary or European Assembly constituencies.
Before 1979, the Boundary Commissions interpreted this requirement very strictly and it was rarely, if ever, that they allowed more than one month for the submission of representations. That situation often caused great difficulties for prospective objectors and other interested parties, especially if the vital month overlapped the holiday period in midsummer or at Christmas.
Boundary Commission recommendations often appear with little warning and their contents may be unexpected. Although such recommendations are usually reported in the press, it can take a little time for interested persons to see all the details at the places at which the recommendations are made available for public inspection. Members of political parties are naturally very interested in proposals that may greatly affect them, and the publication of constituency boundary recommendations usually necessitates discussion at branch, constituency and even regional level within those parties. Local authorities within the areas affected by recommendations need to hold meetings of the relevant committees and, possibly, of their full councils in order to formulate and submit representations to the Commission.
It is virtually impossible for such consultations to be completed satisfactorily within one calendar month of the publication of recommendations. In the past two years the Boundary Commissions have recognised those difficulties. In practice, they have generally allowed periods of more than one month for the submission of representations. Although the law limits the period within which a Boundary Commission is obliged to consider representations to one month, a commission may, at its discretion, extend that period. At present, it usually does so.
During the past two years, the periods allowed for representations by the English Boundary Commission, for example, have varied from one month eight days, in relation to its revised recommendations for Cheshire in May and June 1980, to two months six days, in relation

to its provisional recommendations for Bedfordshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in July, August and September 1980. That period covered the main holiday weeks.
The amendment inserts into the legal requirements relating to European Assembly constituencies the practice applied in respect of Westminster constituency boundary reviews. Although no provision in the Bill can affect the procedures for reviewing Westminster constituencies the amendment would almost certainly lead to a corresponding change, at the first suitable opportunity, in the law relating to reviews of parliamentary constituencies.
An argument can be made for allowing more time for the submission of representations in relation to proposals for European Assembly constituencies because of their geographical extent and because European Assembly constituencies are composed of six, seven or eight parliamentary constituencies. The processes of consultation on Boundary Commission proposals are necessarily longer and involve wider areas in the case of European Assembly constituencies.
If changes were made in European Assembly constituencies and if, for example, an area were taken out of one constituency and put into another, there would be a knock-on effect. That knock-on effect might in turn necessitate discussion within political parties at a national level before representations could be formulated for submission to the commission. In short, it is plainly unsatisfactory to restrict to one month the period in which representations can be made about the proposals for European Assembly constituencies.
In law, the limit stands at one month because the procedure for European Assembly constituencies replicates the procedure for Westminster constituencies. In practice, the procedure for Westminster has become more flexible in past two years. It seems sensible and reasonable to use this opportunity to amend the procedure in relation to European constituencies and to extend from one month to two months the obligatory period for making representations to the Boundary Commissions. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on succeeding in raising an issue of wide significance in a debate on such a fantastically narrow Bill. As my hon. Friend said, it is of significance to the work of the Boundary Commissions in relation not only to the House but to the European Assembly. I am sure that you will tell me at once, Mr. Weatherill, if I stray out of order, but, although we are not entitled here to discuss the arrangements of the Boundary Commission in respect of the Westminster constituencies, the considerations that my hon. Friend the Member for Goole has adduced in relation to the European Assembly apply—most of them, at least—to the work of the Boundary Commission on British constituencies.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, if we were to succeed in persuading the House that it was desirable to make that change, it would make no sense to make it only for European constituencies, but it would be desirable, at least at some convenient later stage, to go on to make it in respect of the British constituencies as well. However, it is good that we have this opportunity to raise the on this Bill, because there would not normally be an opportunity to raise this subject except by means of a Ten-minute Bill.
When the Boundary Commission brings up proposals, should it be obligatory for it to give two months' notice—at any rate, longer than one month's notice—whether we are talking about European or Westminster constituencies? Anyone can see, simply in the abstract, that notice of one month is short. There are very few instances where we provide for notice in law where the doer, having given notice, is permitted act after as little as one month. There is normally a longer period.
The difficulty created by a minimum period of one month is particularly so if not an individual but an organisation, particularly a political party organisation, is responding to the notice. Political parties are amongst the few organisations which regularly make representations about the boundaries of parliamentary and European Assembly constituencies. Such organisations generally meet every month, at most.
Thus, if the provisional recommendation comes out at a certain time, and if the organisation is not due to meet until about three weeks later, there is a problem. It is an especial problem, as has been said, if the recommendation comes out, for example, in July or August, because the organisation probably is not due to have a meeting in August. That applies not only to political party organisations but to other organisations, perhaps amenity organisations which feel that there is good ground, on the basis of community interest, why a boundary should not be placed in a certain position.
The same difficulty applies to local authorities. They do not all operate even on a monthly cycle. Some of them operate on a six-week cycle and some, I should think, on a three-monthly cycle. Accordingly, short of calling special meetings—why should we impose that on them?—they have difficulty in responding to a period of notice as short as one month.
It is true that the Boundary Commissions can in practice give a longer period, but my experience—we all have experience in different parts of the country—is that, while they stretch the rule in particular cases, they often make the demand for a response within one month, even if they are prepared to tolerate comments coming in after that time. That is not a desirable situation. Local authorities are especially well placed to comment—I shall not say always, but sometimes, on an impartial basis—upon proposals for boundaries. My local authority, if I remember correctly, was not able to get through its decision-taking process in time, simply because of the schedule for meetings, to make comments upon the provisional recommendations of the Boundary Commission in Islington. That is highly undesirable.
If we were starting afresh and making schedule 2 to the 1949 Act now, we would not say one month. We would say something longer than a month. Since we are presented accidentally with this opportunity to review our wisdom or unwisdom on that occasion, we should take that opportunity and take a decision in principle if the period of one month is too little.

Mr. Russell Johnston: On what did the hon. Gentleman base his assertion—en passant admittedly—that local authorities, which are almost always politically controlled, are able to make representations on what he described as an impartial basis?

Mr. Cunningham: I was basing myself on the experience of Islington borough council. In the

redistribution of boundaries in that area it so happens that no political point arises. But there are other relevant points which are of a non-political nature. Should one have a railway line as a boundary? Has a certain ward more connection with ward A or ward B? Do people tend to cross such and such a main road? Those and other considerations, even if one has a 100 per cent. domination of a council for one party—I regret that we do not quite have that in Islington, where our considerations are of an impartial nature—are peculiarly appropriate to be made by local authorities, which play a major active role in the drawing of boundaries for local authority elections.
Thus, the local authorities have the difficulty, the political parties have the difficulty, other organisations have the difficulty and even individuals have the difficulty. We were wrong in 1949 to lay down the period of one month. We would not lay down one month if we were starting afresh now. Let us therefore make the modest change to two months proposed by my hon. Friend in the expectation that we shall make a similar change in the procedures for Westminster constituencies at some later stage. I commend the amendment to the serious consideration of the Minister and of the Committee.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish to do no more than express the view that the arguments adduced by the hon. Members for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) seem to be worth the support of the Committee.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I do not think that I shall be able to match the admirable brevity of the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), but I shall do my best.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for the way in which they have moved and spoken to this amendment. The effect of the amendment is to extend from one month to two months the period during which representations may be made with respect to the proposed recommendations of the Boundary Commissions regarding any European Assembly constituency.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Goole—I acknowledge his great expertise, experience and learning in these matters—that there are occasions when difficulty is experienced by those who have an interest in those matters in taking account of representations made by the Boundary Commission and in getting round the formulation of representations in respect of them. It is right to say that at holiday times, for example, that problem is most notable.
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the occasional complexity of Boundary Commission proposals, although I should have thought that that would be of less application to proposals for the European Parliament where constituencies have to be made from complete Westminster constituencies. It is a question of how one arranges the blocks rather than how one shapes this or that corner of a constituency.
The hon. Member for Goole was of course right to say that European Parliament constituencies are larger, but, his case was not substantiated when he said that there is therefore a case for a longer period for representations to be made. Perhaps it is, on the contrary, easier to formulate representations because the constituencies have to be made up as I have described.
Schedule 2(5) to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 prescribes that, where a Boundary Commission has provisionally determined to make recommendations with respect to any European Assembly constituency, the commission should publish a notice to inform those concerned. That notice is required to state, among other things, that representations about the proposed recommendations may be made to the commission within a month after the first publication of the notice. The commission is required to take into consideration any representations duly made in accordance with any such notice. The amendment would double the period to two months.
That procedure is analogous to what is prescribed in respect of provisional recommendations by Boundary Commissions relating to parliamentary constituencies at Westminster. Indeed, the hon. Member for Goole has fairly said that it would be his hope and intention, if the amendment were carried, that the same change should be made in respect of parliamentary Boundary Commission recommendations in due course.
The House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 imposes an obligation on a parliamentary Boundary Commission to take into account any considerations duly made within a month of the publication of the notice of the proposed recommendations. However—both hon. Members acknowledge this point—in its guide entitled "The review of parliamentary constituencies", which was published in 1978, the English Boundary Commission said that, while the law prescribed a minimum period for representations of one month,
wherever possible, the Commission grant a reasonable extension of that period to assist local authorities or others who wish to make representations to do so.
That is a sensible and wise approach.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, although the commission can make that statement in the document from which he has quoted, it cannot include it in the notice whose contents are prescribed in detail by the schedule, and that there it has to say that it will take into account considerations brought to its notice within one month? It has to say that in the public notice in the newspaper, whatever it says in the book, and the public see the newspaper, not the book.

Mr. Mayhew: If the hon. Member tells me that, I of course accept it. I am afraid that I have not confirmed it myself, but I accept that that is the case and I have no doubt that it is in the schedule. However, I wonder whether that is a great handicap, since the class of objector or person who is sufficiently interested to make representations in this regard will, I should have thought, in most cases be active in politics and therefore aware of the practice of the Boundary Commission.
However, I take the point. Perhaps we should consider enabling the Boundary Commission to vary the terms of its notice, but the real question is, whether we are to double the length of time within which representations may be lodged. It is always difficult to strike the proper balance between allowing interested parties sufficient time to lodge any representations and ensuring that that period does not extend so much that it makes for an unwarranted delay in the review and implementation of the recommendations. A month seems, in the normal course

of events, an adequate time, although I accept that there may be instances in which it has been found to cause difficulties. However, where that deadline has not been met, there has to be the latitude of which the hon. Member for Goole speaks.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that we made a mistake in 1949 and had no opportunity to put it right. He said that if we were sitting down now to write schedule 2 of that Act we would not provide only for one month. But these matters were reviewed in the 1958 Act and evidently at that stage Parliament did not think a change was warranted. Many matters were reviewed in 1958, but this did not feature among them.
If we were to extend the period to two months, a similar latitude would come to be expected. No individual or body corporate likes to insist upon a strict adherence to a time limit. In a proper case, one always prefers to say "You are a week or a fortnight or a month out of time, but we shall overlook it." I think that, in time, the same latitude would come to be expected—perhaps greater latitude—to reflect the doubling of the period within which the representations come to be made. Therefore, despite the thoughtful and helpful way in which the amendment has been moved and supported, I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply. He is still very new in his present position and we had hoped for a "new broom" approach from him, that he might be more willing to impose his wishes over the advice of his Department and to accept a reasonable amendment. Alas, that does not appear to be the case.
As the Minister said, because the European constituencies have to be built up out of blocks of Westminster constituencies, it is easier to see what amendments there may be. However, the difficulties of organising meetings of bodies which may be interested in proposals for European constituencies are much greater. Because the European constituencies are much larger, it is more difficult to call meetings of people representing the different parts of those larger constituencies. In some parts of the country such meetings can be held only at specific times of the week—perhaps on a Saturday, or even a Sunday, afternoon. Meetings on weekday evenings are not possible if people are to be able to return home from them the same night.
Any amendment proposed to recommendations for European Assemblies constituencies must involve more than one European constituency, since a recommendation will involve taking a Westminster constituency from European constituency A and putting it into European constituency B. Therefore, any discussions of possible changes must involve the whole of at least two proposed European constituencies.
That leads on to what I described earlier as the knock-on effect. Many forms of amendment to European constituency proposals can involve a large number of European constituencies, so it is important to give wide opportunity for discussion throughout the affected area.
In his reply the Minister referred to the flexibility now being pursued by the Boundary Commissions in allowing time for objections. It is certainly true that during the past two years the approach has been more flexible. However, that flexible approach has not applied uniformly


throughout the country. Greater flexibility has been allowed for some counties than for others. Curiously enough, the Boundary Commission for England, for example, seems inclined to make the deadline for receiving submissions the last day of the calendar month—not always, but often. Thus, the exact length of the interval before the end of the calendar month specified for the deadline depends largely on the time of the month when proposals are made.
It seems unfair that different amounts of time are being allowed in different parts of the country. In order to have a uniform basis throughout the country so that everyone is treated fairly and alike, we should tidy up what has become the practice in this respect by establishing in law an obligation on the Boundary Commissions to receive and consider representations made within a full two-month period.
The Minister, while sympathising with our case, tried to find vague reasons for doing nothing. That case has not been properly answered. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends and others will support the amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: The Minister made clear that he will advise his 300 colleagues—who have all listened intently to the debate, along with the hundreds on the Opposition Benches—to vote against the amendment. Since we know what the outcome will be, may I leave this thought with him? It cannot be right that a statutory body should issue a booklet which says that it will exercise latitude and that items can be put in after the due date, but is required by law to put a notice in the paper which implies the contrary.
The words in the schedule are clear. They say that a Boundary Commission shall publish in at least one newspaper a notice stating
that representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the Commission within one month after the first publication of the notice",
and that those must be taken into account. That cannot be right. Whatever arguments we may have about the period of four weeks, six weeks or eight weeks, it cannot be right that a body should be required by law to put a misleading advertisement in a newspaper. Whatever the result of the vote, I hope that the Home Office will take the point on board and consider the matter more seriously. In the light of the arguments we have adduced, I recommend my colleagues to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 233, Noes 298.

Division No. 45]
[4.54 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Adams, Allen
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Alton, David
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robin F.


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Cowans, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, J. M.





Crowther, J. S.
Lamborn, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ronald


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McCusker, H.


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dewar, Donald
McElhone, Frank


Dixon, Donald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dormand, Jack
McKelvey, William


Douglas, Dick
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
McNally, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McTaggart, Robert


Eadie, Alex
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Magee, Bryan


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Marks, Kenneth


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


English, Michael
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Evans, John (Newton)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foulkes, George
Morton, George


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Freud, Clement
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Ginsburg, David
O'Neill, Martin


Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George


Grant, John (Islington C)
Parker, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Prescott, John


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Race, Reg


Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Richardson, Jo


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Homewood, William
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Horam, John
Robertson, George


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roper, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sever, John


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)


Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Kinnock, Neil
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Soley, Clive






Spearing, Nigel
Weetch, Ken


Spriggs, Leslie
Welsh, Michael


Steel, Rt Hon David
White, Frank R.


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Whitehead, Phillip


Stoddart, David
Whitlock, William


Stott, Roger
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Wilson, William (C'try S E)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Torney, Tom
Woolmer, Kenneth


Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Mr. Austin Mitchell.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Aitken, Jonathan
Critchley, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Crouch, David


Alison, Michael
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom
Dover, Denshore


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Eggar, Tim


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Elliott, Sir William


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Emery, Peter


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Eyre, Reginald


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Blackburn, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John


Body, Richard
Fell, Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bowden, Andrew
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Brinton, Tim
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Brittan, Leon
Fry, Peter


Brooke, Hon Peter
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Brotherton, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brown, M. (Brigg and Scun)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Buck, Antony
Goodhart, Philip


Budgen, Nick
Goodhew, Victor


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodlad, Alastair


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gorst, John


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian


Butler, Hon Adam
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gray, Hamish


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Grieve, Percy


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Churchill, W. S.
Grist, Ian


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Cockeram, Eric
Hampson, Dr Keith


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, John


Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Cormack, Patrick
Hastings, Stephen


Corrie, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Costain, Sir Albert
Hawkins, Paul





Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Onslow, Cranley


Heddle, John
Osborn, John


Henderson, Barry
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Hill, James
Parris, Matthew


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hooson, Tom
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Sir Ian


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)
Pink, R. Bonner


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Timothy


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton, Tim


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lester Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Smith, Dudley


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Speller, Tony


McQuarrie, Albert
Spence, John


Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Major, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Ian


Marlow, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Marshall Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stevens, Martin


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, J. (E Renfrewshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald


Monro, Hector
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Montgomery, Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Murphy, Christopher
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Myles, David
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, David


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, John






Waldegrave, Hon William
Wickenden, Keith


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Wilkinson, John


Waller, Gary
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Warren, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Watson, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant


Whitney, Raymond
and Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 7, at end insert:
(5) After paragraph 10 of that Schedule there shall be inserted a new paragraph—
'10A. In making recommendations for any Assembly constituency, a Boundary Commission shall have regard to the community of interest within that constituency and to county boundaries so far as is compatible with the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph.'.

The Chairman: With this we may discuss amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 7, at end insert:
(5) In paragraph 10 of that Schedule after the word 'considerations' there shall be added the words 'including, in particular, the size, shape and accessibility of an Assembly constituency'.

Mr. Cunningham: These two amendments relate to the criteria which are to be taken into account by a Boundary Commission in grouping British constituencies in order to make of them European constituencies. The present criteria are brief. They are much briefer than those laid upon a Boundary Commission for British constituencies. The criteria in relation to European constituencies are set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 of schedule 2 to the 1978 Act.
Leaving aside the rule that a commission is not to split up any British constituency so that it falls in part in one Euro-constituency and in part in another, the two criteria are only that a Boundary Commission is to try to make the electoral numbers in a Euro-constituency as near to the electoral quota—that is, the average—as is reasonably practicable and, secondly, that it must have regard to special geographic considerations.
Our amendments add to those two criteria that a commission is to have regard to the "size, shape and accessibility" of a constituency. That is done by amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 4 adds two further considerations—that a Boundary Commission
shall have regard to the community of interest … and to county boundaries".
The words "size, shape and accessibility" already exist in the provisions relating to British constituencies. The criteria for British constituencies are set out in schedule 2 to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. Schedule 2 to the 1949 Act is a complete dog's breakfast. There is no logical order to it at all. It must have been drafted either after many amendments in the House so that it ended as a dog's breakfast, or by someone with a mind like a ball of wool after the cat has got at it.
If one picks out the criteria and ignores for the moment the relationship enjoined between the criteria, the criteria are; first, there is to be no crossing of county boundaries; secondly, there is to be no crossing of borough boundaries, although not quite in those words; thirdly, commissions

are to have regard to the quota; fourthly, they are to have regard to special geographical conditions. That is qualified in this case by the words:
including, in particular, the size, shape and accessibility of an Assembly constituency".
The difficulty arises because each of those is made subject to either which goes before or comes after, or to both. In effect, the Boundary Commissions are really told, "Take all those things into account and weigh one against the other in whatever way you think is appropriate to the situation." The only thing which is enjoined on them as an absolute rule, apart from having a certain number of seats in England, a certain number of seats in Scotland, and so on, is that the name of the City of London must be preserved in the title of the constituency. Why on earth that consideration should be raised to that elevation in the criteria, I do not know. I say this as a Member whose constituency abuts the City of London. We always pay the City of London far too high regard in these matters.
The other considerations need to be tremendously tidied up. For the moment, however, we cannot do that. But the question arises whether the criteria that we have laid down in the 1978 Act for the European constituencies are really too brief and bald by comparison with those that we have laid down for British constituencies and in the light of the considerations that ought to be taken into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on Second Reading gave examples of the odd situation that exists in some parts of the country—his own, in particular—where a European constituency spreads over local authority boundaries and, indeed, county boundaries and takes in parts of the country which have no natural connection with each other. We all understand that, if one is trying to divide Great Britain into 78 constituencies, there are bound to be oddities. There are bound to be undesirable features of whatever boundaries one finds. But let us try to reduce them to a minimum by giving to the Boundary Commissions in relation to this work a rather better indication of what factors they should take into account.
We therefore propose that the reference to geographical considerations should have added after it the words stated in the amendment, namely:
including, in particular, the size, shape and accessibility of an Assembly constituency".
We also recommend that they should have a fresh criterion laid upon them so that they are required to take into account:
shall have regard to the community of interest within that constituency and to county boundaries so far as is compatible with the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph.
The wording and content of both those amendments are absolutely in line with what we have enjoined upon the Boundary Commissions in relation to British constituencies.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect upon the adequacy of what he is now urging upon the Committee in terms of the situation of the Suffolk MEP, where the constituency is nominated as Suffolk and Harwich and thereby goes into an entirely different county and takes away a part of a parliamentary constituency?

Mr. Cunningham: I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's last remark, when he said that it takes away a part of a parliamentary constituency.

Mr. Stainton: In so far as the remainder of the MEP's constituency embraces the totalities of various Westminster constituencies, so be it. But it also includes a snippet only of another Westminster constituency.

Mr. Cunningham: I think that the hon. Gentleman must be making a mistake on that. The present European constituencies are made up entirely of whole Westminster constituencies. One is always 99·9 per cent. certain that one is right, so I am, as it were, looking around in various directions, but I understand that that is right. I think that the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken in thinking that a British constituency has been put partly into one Euro-constituency and partly into another. Indeed, schedule 2, part II, paragraph 9 of the Act that we are here amending says quite categorically:
In Great Britain …
(b) no parliamentary constituency shall be included partly in one Assembly constituency and partly in another.
So I think that his second complaint cannot be right.
The hon. Gentleman's first complaint, however, is well founded, in that many European constituencies spill over local authority boundaries and there are certainly some which spill over county boundaries. That was the objection raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole on Second Reading.
We are not saying that it should be impossible for a European constituency to cross a county boundary. One could not possibly have such a rule and do the 78-constituency job in Great Britain. We are just saying that in doing that job the Boundary Commissions ought to take the existence of county boundaries into account, which implies that, if they can avoid crossing them, they ought to. That is all. At the moment, they are certainly not permitted to allow that consideration to have any moderating effect on the considerations as set down in Schedule 2(10) to the 1978 Act.
I think that the case is made out for adding these considerations. It would make the Boundary Commissions' job slightly easier, I think. They are considerations to which, frankly, they will in practice have regard, because the commissions consist of people with common sense who know that it would be a pity to cross county boundaries. In practice, they will take account of those considerations, but they cannot allow them to outweigh the considerations explicitly forced upon the commissions by the Act as it stands.
I hope that the Minister will agree that both amendments are sensible, that, far from creating difficulties for the Boundary Commissions, they would actually make their task easier, and that he will therefore look upon them kindly. It is important for the working of democracy that people should be able to identify with the area where they have a representative. The more unreal the area, the less they can do so. With these provisions it might be easier for the Boundary Commissions to give us European constituencies that have a certain cohesion and realness in the minds of the public.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I have a considerable problem with the amendments. Both are designed, as I understand from the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), to improve the so-called Euro-constituencies. I do not believe that they can be

improved: I believe that they should be abolished. I still hope that good sense and fairness will prevail and that agreement will be reached in the Council of Ministers next year on a uniform system—not the system on which we fought the 1979 elections but one that will lead to the repeal of the legal requirements laid upon the Boundary Commissions to fashion Euro-constituencies on the present model. I therefore oppose the legislation as being unnecessary at this stage and as having the effect of appearing to confirm what was generally regarded as a temporary expedient—that is, the Euro-constituencies for the 1979 election.
From that it follows that I see no merit at all in amendments that are designed to improve legislation which I regard as superfluous in practice and objectionable in implication. I should like to vote against both the Bill and the amendments. Indeed, if I had the co-operation of the Minister, I might be able to do just that. But the Minister would have to accept the amendments and I could then call a Division against the Bill as amended by agreement. That appears to me to be the only way in which I could achieve what I would really like to do.
In the event, I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote for the amendments as a negative act, because it is the only thing that I can think of doing. Sometimes there is no device in this place for people to express views which are quite clear and distinct, and in this case neither the proposition nor the amendments allow for that view in any way to be expressed through the Division Lobbies.
I wish to say one or two things not about PR, much as I should like to do so, but about the amendments as they stand. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, whose remarks are normally replete with good sense, made an extraordinary remark in his peroration. He said, with the heavy resonance that is thought appropriate for Front Bench speakers, that it was important for the workings of democracy that people should have an opportunity of identifying themselves with the areas in which they elect representatives. What absolute and utter drivel!
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider an area which he knows but which I perhaps know a little better, to wit, the Euro-constituency of the Highlands and Islands. Perhaps he will tell me the identification which exists between Banffshire and Argyll or Orkney and Shetland or Moray and Nairn. If he did that, I should be much wiser. However, there is no such identification. There are large tracts of land in this country where one cannot create Euro-constituencies with the kind of identification which the hon. Gentleman and the amendments seek. He is pursuing an illusion in suggesting that it is possible.

Mr. George Cunningham: I think that the hon. Gentleman is over-egging the pudding. Of course the Highlands of Scotland—that enormous Euro-constituency—will not feel that kind of geographical identity. However, I look at this matter by contrasting my own constituency, for example—which is a slice of inner London with no natural boundaries—with a town such as Rugby, where we have one town and one Member. I am quite sure that it is highly desirable for people walking about in the streets of an area to know who their Member of Parliament is. That is possible when we have a cohesive town such as Rugby. It is not so possible when we have a constituency composed of a slice of a large city. In so


far as we can make constituencies, whether British or European, more like the Rugby situation and less like the Islington, South and Finsbury situation, the better.

Mr. Johnston: If one were debating Westminster constituencies by themselves, that would be a perfectly fair riposte. We could then compare the town of Rugby, which is a clearly definable unit and recognised as such by those who live there, with a slice of a large urban concentration. That is true with regard not only to London, but to Manchester, Liverpool and other places. However, when we consider constituencies which will have electorates of up to 500,000 people I just do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's argument, which has validity within the example that he quoted, is relevant. I have made the point, and, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, I shall not seek to over-egg it. It is a point which stands in its own right.
Secondly, I am not clear about the intention of amendment No. 4, which states:
a Boundary Commission shall have regard to the community of interest within that constituency and to county boundaries".
I do not know what the legal position is. Would that apply to regional boundaries in Scotland? Will the word "county" as used in the amendment have that effect in law if the amendment is passed?

Mr. George Cunningham: Regretfully, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not know. Probably, in order to be entirely correct, one would need to make the same modification as is made in the schedule to the 1949 Act, where I believe the reference to county boundaries in England is matched by a reference to local authority boundaries in the case of Scotland. If the amendment has been drafted without taking account of the situation in Scotland, one will have to fall back on the constant defence of Back Benchers and Oppositions, namely, that the Government will no doubt put us right on a small, technical point such as that.

Mr. Johnston: I am sure that the Minister is pleased to learn that, whatever their shortcomings, the Government are capable of putting us right on small technical points. That is a great encouragement. However, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Scottish Boundary Commission, in creating Westminster constituencies, is instructed not to cross regional boundaries. Consequently, even if one made the amendment applicable to Scotland, it would be superflous because it is already taken care of. In other words, one's building blocks are already within regional boundaries by definition, because one's constituencies are now allowed to overlap regional boundaries. The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) looks doubtful.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Is not the hon. Gentleman forgetting that in building up a European constituency in Scotland one can take blocks from different regions, so one could have a Scottish European constituency overlapping a regional boundary?

Mr. Johnston: I take that point. It is perfectly fair. In fact, it has been done. However, I do not wish to prolong this discussion. I do not know whether it is appropriate for the Minister to give any indication of the Government's position regarding a uniform system of elections, if and when agreement is reached in the Council of Ministers.

However, if he were to take this opportunity to say something about that, I am sure that it would be welcomed not only by me but by other hon. Members.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I am happy to have this opportunity to support the amendments, which add to the criteria which must govern the Boundary Commissions in drawing up proposals for European Assembly constituencies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, the present criteria are brief and relate simply to the use of parliamentary constituencies as the building blocks for European constituencies and to the need for European constituency electorates to be as close as possible to the electoral quota
having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations.
It is curious that in that quotation, which comes from Schedule 2(10) to the 1978 Act, "special geographical considerations" are not defined, whereas they are in the parent Act of 1949. That is precisely what amendment No. 5 does. It specifies the special geographical considerations to be taken into account, namely,
the size, shape and accessibility of an Assembly constituency".
5.30 pm
There are one or two European Assembly constituencies that cause some difficulty in that respect. For example, the Yorkshire North constituency, to which the Goole parliamentary division belongs, is an enormous geographical expanse stretching almost right across England, from the port of Goole on the tidal river Ouse, which flows into the North Sea through the Humber, to within 10 miles of Morecambe Bay. It comprises all the Westminster parliamentary constituencies linking Goole through North Yorkshire to Skipton, taking in the Bowland area of Lancashire and the Sedbergh area of Cumbria.
In fact, the Yorkshire North Assembly constituency overlaps six English counties. It does not represent any area having any sense of community of interest. That is the point of amendment No. 4, which would add to the criteria governing the commissions in drawing up proposals for European constituencies and require that they should take into account the question of community of interest within the constituencies suggested.
That did not happen with the constituencies drawn up for the 1979 election. That is not surprising, because the Boundary Commissions were not required to ensure that there should be a close sense of community of interest in the proposed European constituencies. Thus we have some rather strange European constituencies. For example, Lancashire Central covers a diverse set of towns stretching from Blackpool on the coast to Wigan in Greater Manchester. As far as I know, the only thing that Blackpool and Wigan have in common is that both have a pier, but they are different communities and it must be difficult for the representative of that constituency adequately to represent those different communities.
Wight and Hampshire East stretches from the Isle of Wight, taking in the whole island, inland as far as Farnham in Surrey in the commuter belt surrounding Greater London. London South-West stretches from Vauxhall, just across the river, from this building, to Surbiton on the Greater London boundary—a very diffuse area.
In trying to inject some community of interest into the criteria for European constituencies it is necessary that we should mention the need to follow county boundaries wherever possible. I readily acknowledge that in many


parts of the country it will not be possible for county boundaries to be fully observed in the drawing up of European constituency boundaries. But if it is possible to achieve a configuration of European constituencies in which some account is taken of county boundaries, that will be an improvement on the present situation.
The county of Humberside is at present divided among three European constituencies—Humberside, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire North. An even more dramatic example is that the county of Wiltshire, which has only five Westminster constituencies, is divided among four European constituencies—Thames Valley, Bristol, Wessex and Hampshire West. The county town of Salisbury—an historic place at the heart or Wiltshire—finds itself in the Hampshire West European constituency. It seems that there the idea of community of interest has gone sadly awry in relation to European constituency boundaries.
The amendments attempt to improve the criteria for European constituencies. They also attempt to put some flesh on the skeleton in schedule 2(9) and (10) to the 1978 Act.

Mr. Mayhew: We have had an interesting debate. I have sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). To my surprise, it brought down on his head the wrath of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) from the Highlands and Islands. But it is right that people should be able to identify themselves with the area forming the constituency in which they are represented in any assembly.
Much of what has lain behind the arguments in support of the amendments can be met only by having smaller and more numerous constituencies in the European Assembly. That is a different matter from anything with which the Bill can concern itself.
I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and deal first with amendment No. 5. He was critical of schedule 2 to the 1949 Act. Its drafting may leave something to be desired, but I think that names are important. I have suffered terribly as a result of Boundary Commission changes that made desperate inroads into my constituency of Royal Tunbridge Wells. As a result of the latest recommendations, the word "Royal" has been removed, but that is not quite as bad as the fate that has befallen my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), whose constituency has been decimated.
The view that I take of the amendments and that I urge on my right hon. and hon. Friends is that, although the proposed considerations that the Boundary Commissions shall take into account are all desirable, the commissions do not need the additional guidance contained in the amendments. Amendment No. 5, requiring them to take into account the "size, shape and accessibility" of an Assembly constituency, is an amplification of what is contained in schedule 2(10) and (11) to the 1978 Act. It is clearly important that special geographical considerations should be taken into account by the Boundary Commissions when they draw up their recommendaions covering the grouping of Westiminster constituencies into

European Assembly constituencies, but it would not be appropriate for the constituencies to be grouped according to an arithmetical formula.
As far as parliamentary redistribution is concerned, schedule 2 to the 1949 Act provides that the electorate of a Westminster constituency should be as near to the electoral quota as practicable, having regard to the other requirements. The schedule states that the strict application of the other criteria contained in those rules be departed from if special geographical considerations appear to render that desirable.
There is a definition in the 1949 Act of "special geographical considerations", which includes the "size, shape and accessibility" of a constituency. The 1949 Act, together with the 1958 Act which amended it, constituted the parliamentary Boundary Commissions as presently established. When that legislation was drafted, it was probably thought appropriate to set out as fully as possible the factors to which particular attention should be given by the commissions when considering whether "special geographical considerations" were sufficient to warrant a departure from the other guide lines. But in drafting the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 the previous Government presumably came to the view that the words
the size, shape and accessibility
were not meaningful in describing the likely construction of European Assembly constituencies, which have to be constructed from the building blocks represented by whole Westminster constituencies. I have not heard any specific evidence to indicate why Labour Members should have changed their minds.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not feel slightly embarrassed in making that point? The whole point of the Bill is that the Government have changed their minds on the very essence of the Bill, namely, whether the Boundary Commissions should bring forward reports on British and Westminster constituencies together.

Mr. Mayhew: Those are separate considerations. The reason why we believe it wrong that the Boundary Commissions should continue to bring forward European recommendations together with Westminster recommendations is simple: it would delay the production and implementation of Westminster recommendations by probably as much as 15 months.

Mr. George Cunningham: And it would cost the Conservatives 20 seats.

Mr. Mayhew: The important point is whether by changing the criteria that we require a Boundary Commission to implement and to be governed by we should be helping or be likely to confuse a commission.
Representations were made about the final outcome of the commissions' deliberations in constructing European constituencies in 1978, especially from areas where recommendations could not be implemented, but no substantial criticism was made about the way in which the commissions interpreted the statutory requirements and no representations have been made which suggest that the inclusion of the words "size, shape and accessibility" would help commissions or alter the substance of their recommendations.
The hon. Member for Inverness suggested that nothing would improve the arrangements for the formulation of European constituencies until a uniform European system


of elections was agreed by the Council of Ministers. We understand his position on that matter and we shall have to see how things develop in Europe and what the European Parliament, and, eventually, the Council of Ministers make of the representations of the political affairs committee.
The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) pointed out that many European constituencies embrace a large number of parliamentary constituencies. For example, the North Yorkshire European constituency covers six Westminster constituencies. However, it will be difficult for the suggested considerations to be put into effect if we are to continue with the number of European constituencies prescribed by legislation.
The purpose of amendment No. 4 is to include among the criteria that a boundary commission must consider "community of interest" and county boundaries:
so far as is compatible
with other provisions.
I have already said most of what I want to say on that amendment. The expression "community of interest" will not help commissions. It is not a phrase used in legislation related to parliamentary boundaries. In some senses, it is obviously appropriate that the boundaries of a constituency to any representative body should be drawn so that, as far as possible, neighbouring areas with common demographic characteristics are grouped together, so that a representative may represent a constituency with defined and limited interests. However, without definition, "community of interest" might be construed very narrowly.
5.45 pm
The hon. Member for Inverness, who sits in Europe, will know that in the European Parliament there are those who speak more or less solely for particular sections of the population, such as French fanners or the wine growers. We do not have a list system to which that type of representation, according to community of interest, is perhaps more appropriate.
Taking a broader view, more applicable to the British situation, the Boundary Commission for England, in its initial report on the division of England into European Assembly constituencies, submitted in 1978, commented on the criteria for grouping parliamentary constituencies into European constituencies:
It seemed that it would not always be possible to propose constituencies of the appropriate electorate which would entirely commend themselves to people with widely different outlooks in contiguous areas which had little in common except their geographical position. We therefore endeavoured, so far as possible, to reflect the broad common interests and local loyalties of an area as a whole and to take account of the patterns of communications which served the various parts in the constituencies finally selected for our provisional recommendations".
In the light of that evidence of the practical approach of the Commission, the imposition of a statutory requirement on commissions to have regard to community of interest would not add anything of value. On the contrary, in the context of constituencies averaging half a million electors, we should be adding a requirement which could be troublesomely imprecise.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I should start by correcting his comment that I sit in Europe now. I do not. I did, but no Liberal now sits in the European Parliament.
I hope that in the comparisons that the Minister made between representatives in the British context and those in

the European Parliament context he was not anticipating the attitude that the Government might take towards a recommendation, possibly in the direction of a proportional representation system, following discussions that will take place this year.

Mr. Mayhew: I have made clear that we shall have to wait and see what emerges from the Council of Ministers.
As for the accommodation of European Assembly constituencies within county boundaries, the English commission said:
The Commission felt that it would be desirable on broad as well as practical grounds to try and base European Assembly constituencies as far as possible on the administrative counties. But the electorates of most of the counties were too small or too large to provide single member European Assembly constituencies of the right size and, where they were, it would sometimes have been necessary to divide them to accommodate a parliamentary constituency boundary or a neighbouring county of smaller or larger electorate. The large counties would of course be able to accommodate more than one constituency, subject to the above considerations".
It pointed out that 52 of the existing parliamentary constituencies fell across county boundaries. None of the metropolitan county boundaries coincides with parliamentary constituency boundaries, but the 92 parliamentary constituencies in Greater London offered an opportunity to recommend European Assembly constituencies of the right size, judged by electorates within that administrative area.
It therefore seems impracticable to require the commissions to have regard to county boundaries in formulating their proposals. It is generally impossible for a commission to comply with both that requirement and the more important requirement of electoral equality. It seems to us that, in practical terms, the concerns expressed by the supporters of the amendment were, as far as was practicable, taken into account by the Boundary Commissions in their initial reports. For the reasons I have indicated, it would be impracticable to impose statutory duties on the commissions in respect of these matters.
It is important to note that no representations have been received from the commissions themselves to the effect that they should be given fresh or more specific criteria on which to act. They do not seem to have found difficulty here. It seems unwise, therefore, to make these further provisions which add little to the existing practice of the commissions. I understand and appreciate what has been said. It is difficult to believe, however, that if these words had been included, they would have made very much difference, if any, to the way in which the commissions have drawn up the different boundaries. I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendments.

Mr. George Cunningham: I reckon that the Minister has made four points against the amendments. First, he said that "community of interest" is a consideration that does not feature in the legislation at the moment for Westminster constituencies. Although that is true, every political party agent up and down the country who appears before local inquiries and such like would assure him that the one thing told to everyone who makes representations to the inquiries is that "community of interest" is the consideration that is most compelling to most assistant boundary commissioners and to the Boundary Commissions when they come to consider their recommendations. It has to be recognised that this is a feature of our system whether or not it is included in the


legislation. In practice, people know that it is an important consideration for the reasons that the hon. and learned Gentlemen supported me in adducing against the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston).
Secondly, the Minister said that "community of interest" was too vague a phrase to be put into the legislation. What about "special geographical considerations"? I can just about see what geographical considerations are—a river, a mountain or, perhaps, a motorway. What is the difference between a geographical consideration and a special geographical consideration? If one is looking for something vague, we have got it already not only in the practice of the matter but in the legislation. Presumably, someone thought that the word "special" did something different to the term "geographical considerations."
Thirdly, the Minister said that the Boundary Commissions would take all these things into account anyway. I make the point that I have made previously. They cannot, or should not properly, at the moment allow any of those considerations to override the mere two considerations laid on them by present legislation—the quota and the special geographical considerations. We are saying that some of these other factors should be allowed not to override the quota but to override and to have an influence upon the geographical considerations.
Fourthly, if the Minister is troubled about overriding the quota, there is no problem. One simply provides, as is provided in the legislation about British constituencies, that the other considerations are to be taken into account on the basis of the quota. I have forgotten the precise words. One gives the quota a heavier weighting than the others. It is right for the Opposition to have tabled the amendments and to press them to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 239, Noes 300.

Division No. 46]
[5.54 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Coleman, Donald


Adams, Allen
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Allaun, Frank
Conlan, Bernard


Alton, David
Cook, Robin F.


Anderson, Donald
Cowans, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Craigen, J. M.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, J. S.


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Deakins, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Douglas, Dick


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunn, James A.


Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack


Carmichael, Neil
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eadie, Alex


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Eastham, Ken


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)





Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


English, Michael
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Evans, John (Newton)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Forrester, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W' shawe)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Freud, Clement
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Halloran, Michael


Ginsburg, David
O'Neill, Martin


Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George


Grant, John (Islington C)
Parker, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Parry, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Haynes, Frank
Race, Reg


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Richardson, Jo


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Homewood, William
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Robertson, George


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roper, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ryman, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sandelson, Neville


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Sever, John


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lambie, David
Silverman, Julius


Lamborn, Harry
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Litherland, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stoddart, David


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Stott, Roger


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


McCusker, H.
Straw, Jack


McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McNally, Thomas
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McNamara, Kevin
Tinn, James


McTaggart, Robert
Torney, Tom


McWilliam, John
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Magee, Bryan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)






Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Watkins, David
Wilson, William (C'try S E)


Weetch, Ken
Winnick, David


Welsh, Michael
Woodall, Alec


White, Frank R.
Woolmer, Kenneth


Whitehead, Phillip
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Whitlock, William
Young, David (Bolton E)


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)
Mr. George Morton.


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Elliott, Sir William


Ancram, Michael
Emery, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Farr, John


Banks, Robert
Fell, Anthony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bell, Sir Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blackburn, John
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Body, Richard
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bowden, Andrew
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brinton, Tim
Goodhart, Philip


Brittan, Leon
Goodhew, Victor


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Brotherton, Michael
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg and Scun)
Gow, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gray, Hamish


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Greenway, Harry


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Grylls, Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Gummer, John Selwyn


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, W. S.
Hastings, Stephen


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Paul


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawksley, Warren


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hayhoe, Barney


Cockeram, Eric
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Cope, John
Henderson, Barry


Cormack, Patrick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Corrie, John
Hicks, Robert


Costain, Sir Albert
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hill, James


Crouch, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hooson, Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Hordern, Peter


Dover, Denshore
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)





Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pink, R. Bonner


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Porter, Barry


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Renton, Tim


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhodes James, Robert


Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Latham, Michael
Ross, Wm (Londonderry)


Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lester Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Smith, Dudley


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Sproat, Ian


Marland, Paul
Stainton, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, J. (E Renfrewshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Donald


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Monro, Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, John
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mudd, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Myles, David
Wakeham, John


Neale, Gerrard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Needham, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, B. (Perth)


Neubert, Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Newton, Tony
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Osborn, John
Ward, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Watson, John


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Parkinson, Cecil
Wells, Bowen


Parris, Matthew
Wheeler, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Raymond


Percival, Sir Ian
Wickenden, Keith


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry






Wilkinson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Williams, D. (Montgomery)



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant


Young, Sir George (Acton)
and Mr. Anthony Berry

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Mr. George Cunningham: The issue on which I want to press the Minister to make some remarks when he replies is that mentioned by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on Second Reading, namely, the Government's attitude to the proposals and preparatory work going on in the European Parliament about adopting a common system for the next European elections. The hon. and learned Gentleman indicated a few minutes ago in Committee that the Government's attitude to that was that they would wait for something to emerge from the European institutions, or rather from the European Parliament since the Government form part of the European Council of Ministers.
May I put it to the Minister that that really is not good enough? My personal attitude is that that is how we got stuck with direct elections in the first place, and many who favoured them a year or two ago are beginning to think that they were premature. I do not expect the hon. Member for Inverness to agree with me on that, and probably the Minister will not agree with me. However, there is another reason why the Minister should take a more positive and leading role. If we allow a political committee of the European Parliament to cook something up, the likelihood is that some enthusiastic Member in the European Parliament will pick the ball up and run with it, which is exactly what has happened with direct elections. We shall then get it going through the European Parliament and becoming an accepted part of European Parliament policy, supported by a majority, and probably quite a large majority, of the European Assembly.
At that stage it will be more difficult to try to change or to defeat that than it is to steer it away and fend it off at an earlier stage. I commend to the Government a more positive role than they seem inclined to adopt at present. We need to know what is in the Government's mind. They cannot simply say that they have not thought about the issue and, especially in the context of the Bill, that they have not thought about the issue.
The only utterly respectable reason that there could be for the Bill would be if the Government said "We intend to go along with a system for the next European election that is not based on single-member constituencies"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman unduly, but the debate is limited to what is contained in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will turn his remarks to what is in the Bill rather than what is not in it.

Mr. Cunningham: I thought that my last sentence sought to do precisely that. I am arguing that the one really respectable ground for the Bill would be if the Government

said that the next European elections would not be on the basis of single-member constituencies, and that they therefore did not want to waste the time of the Boundary Commission—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is still not discussing what is contained in the Bill. His remarks have nothing to do with the Bill. I hope that he will turn his attention to the subject of the Boundary Commission and the matters contained in the Bill, not the modes of election.

Mr. Cunningham: With great respect, I submit that my remarks are relevant for the reason that if the Government have decided to go along with some sort of proportional representation system for the next European elections, the Bill is necessary. That would be an absolutely respectable ground for bringing forward the Bill, or rather, the Bill with some changes. I have made my point on that matter and I shall not continue on that subject. But I submit that it is relevant to the Bill because the motivations that have led the Government to introduce it—

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says, but is it not equally true to say that the Government do not need to introduce the Bill now? It need not be introduced until the 1982 Session.

Mr. Cunningham: I do not think that there are any reasons why the Government must introduce the Bill now—whether for the reason that I have indicated or for the nefarious reason that has been suggested and that I shall suggest later. Whatever the reason, the Boundary Commission does not need to be relieved of its obligation at this time. However, if it is relieved of the obligation to bring in both reports together, it is as well to tell it so quickly, so that it knows where it stands. So it makes sense for the Government to do it this Session rather than next Session. Unless the Government are prepared in the debate to say that they have given up their attachment—and especially that the Prime Minister has given up her attachment—to a single-member constituency system, the only thoroughly respectable ground for the Bill disappears.
The only purpose of the Bill is to relieve the Boundary Commission of its obligation to produce its recommendations in respect of the European groupings at the same time as it produces its report on the Westminster boundaries. The probable effect on the Boundary Commission's work, as the Minister acknowledged in Committee, will be to shorten the time before the report goes to the Home Office by about 12 to 15 months. More relevant, the effect will be to give the Conservative Party between 15 and 30 seats that it might not have won at the next election. If the Boundary Commission has to produce its report on both issues at the same time, it probably cannot complete its work in time for it to be implemented by the next election. Accordingly, there is a Conservative Party interest in the Bill of a not insignificant size.
As some hon. Members said on Second Reading, motives are always difficult. But when we perceive a Government bringing forward a Bill that is expected to benefit their party interests we should all be on our guard. They may be doing it for absolutely proper and respectable reasons, and the party interest may follow only as an additional, uncovenanted boost for their morale—or it may be the other way round. In trying to decide whether


the Government are introducing the Bill for respectable reasons—and there are some—or for political self-interest, certain facts are relevant. First, if the Government thought that putting the obligation on the Boundary Commission to produce reports on both issues together was a bad idea, why did they not say a single word about it when the main Act was passed in 1978? There were no considerations relevant then that are not relevant today. Indeed, this issue was irrelevant in 1978, because the commission's first work on European constituencies was not being undertaken at the same time as any work on British constituencies. There is no reason that is relevant today that was not equally, and indeed more, relevant when the House passed the original provisions in 1978.
Secondly, the provision in the 1978 Act was not simply a drafting error; it was an explicit part of schedule 2. It was not the result of a slip in drafting. It was included for some reason. Although I must speculate on that reason, I do not have any difficulty in finding good reasons why it was included. If the European constituencies are being made out of the building blocks of British constituencies, there is a case for saying that the decisions on the boundaries of the British constituencies should not be finalised until they have been provisionally put together in Euro-constituencies. If we take the building blocks as given and as unchangeable, we may find that there are limitations on the sensible things that we can do with them.
I shall not repeat the arguments that we canvassed half an hour ago on the desirability of having Euro-constituencies and British constituencies that, so far as possible, are natural areas with some degree of community interest as far as that can be done within the limitations of an electorate of 500,000. That is a valid consideration. It must have been a consideration in the minds of those who prepared the 1978 Act. There was therefore a respectable reason for including it in 1978. The then Conservative Opposition raised no objection to it. There was no vote against it. No word was expressed against it. One is bound to conclude, therefore, that there are other, hidden reasons why the Government wish to raise the difficulties now.
When the Government took office they assumed that the Boundary Commission would couple together the new British constituencies with the new Euro-constituencies in a few months. They did not believe that the commission would take anything like 15 months to do that job. However, the commission thought otherwise. Brief though the criteria laid upon the commission for drawing up European constituencies are, they are there in the statute and the commission intended to do a thorough job. It felt that there would need to be inquiries and that there would need to be the possibility of objections to be taken. It wanted to do as thorough a job on the European grouping as it normally does on the British boundaries.
The Government discovered, to their surprise, that they would not be able necessarily to get the present redistribution job done in time for it to take effect before the next election. They knew that most people believed that that would cost them around 20 seats and decided that they would do everything possible to benefit their own party.
The Minister should clear up one specific point that was not cleared up at the end of the Second Reading debate. The Government were then specifically asked whether it was true that we could not expect the commission work on the European groupings to be completed in time to be used in the 1984 European election. My understanding is that

there is virtually no possibility of the 1984 European election being conducted on redistributed European constituencies. The Minister should tell the House now whether that is the case.
If it is, after 1984 we shall have a situation in which the British constituencies are on the reconstructed basis and the European constituencies are on the unreconstructed basis. The European constituencies will be made up of eight or nine of the old British constituencies, when the old British constituencies have for the most part ceased to exist for the House. That will be an almighty muddle, equivalent to the muddle that exists at present through the previous British redistribution taking place before the rearrangement of local authority boundaries.
If people are not only to identify with their constituency but are to recognise roughly what its boundaries are, there has to be some alignment between the boundaries that apply for Europe and those that apply for this place. The change that is being made in the Bill makes that always more difficult to secure, and in our present situation it makes it almost impossible.
Therefore, the case for the Bill on merit does not exist, unless the Government have been converted to proportional representation for European elections. The case that has persuaded the Government is the political case. To be fair to them, they have never tried very hard to conceal that fact. After all, the first indication that they gave that they would speed up the redistribution of British constituencies, in so far as it lay in their power to do so, was not given in reply to a question in the House, in a statement in the House, or in a speech to an electoral society; it was given in a speech by the former Minister of State at the Home Office to the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool in 1979.
These were some of his words:
The Parliamentary boundary commissions are at work once again and we shall do everything within our power to help their work.
There is nothing wrong with that, on the face of it, but let us look at some of his other words and the context in which they were spoken. He also said:
At one stage potential staffing problems threatened the work of the commission. We took immediate action to deal with that.
DHSS offices throughout the country may be slow because of lack of staff. There may be severe limits on the possibility of recruiting more staff for all sorts of offices doing valuable work throughout the country. However, let the Boundary Commission need more staff in order to get its work done in time for the Conservative Party to gain 20 more seats at the next election, and the Government take immediate action.
Then the Minister said:
I can therefore promise this conference"—
an assurance to the Conservative Party conference about electoral distribution matters—
that the Government is absolutely determined to do everything within its power to ensure that when we come to vote at the next General Election the country will be voting on new boundaries.
The context in which those remarks and other remarks by other Ministers were made—a very political one—makes clear what the Bill is all about.
Only two or three months ago the previous Minister of State visited Whitehaven at present a Labour-held seat in respect of which the Boundary Commission has produced severely controversial recommendations, which were due


only a week or so after his visit to go before a public inquiry. He spoke, as he was perfectly entitled to do, to a Conservative meeting. He said:
I am very confident in our future. The idea that this constituency is a Socialist possession is going to be knocked sky-high.
We have all visited constituencies held almost impregnably by the other party and told our supporters "You can win this seat in time if you work for it." That is all right. However, when the Minister of State, Home Office, responsible for the Boundary Commission work visits a seat where there have been controversial recommendations by the commission—and where an inquiry is to be held the next week and where those recommendations would have split up the constituency and have been of great benefit to the Conservative Party—and makes such remarks, first, it is entirely improper and, secondly, it indicates the state of mind of Ministers in approaching the whole problem.
When I mentioned that on Second Reading the Secretary of State told me to look at what was happening to his constituency. His local party had made recommendations that his seat should be abolished—shot from under him—in contrast to a Boundary Commission recommendation that the opposite should happen. My point does not concern Ministers having an influence on their local parties; it concerns Ministers endeavouring to have an influence on the commission. I would not remotely suggest that the Secretary of State has endeavoured to have an influence on the commission in relation to his seat or any other. Nor do I suggest that the previous Minister of State, Home Office, endeavoured to have an influence on the commission in relation to an individual seat. What I do say is that the Government have acted in a way to try to push matters through in their own party interest. In so far as what has happened in the Secretary of State's area is relevant to the point that I raise, the situation backs up my point rather than the defence that he raised.
The fact is that the Conservative Party has brought the Bill forward to endeavour to secure about 20 more seats at the next election than it would otherwise win. That is a disreputable purpose and one to be condemned by the whole House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill should not be allowed to go through the House without a few remarks to back up those of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). What he has said, with his research and knowledge of the subject, is demonstrably true. It has also been demonstrably true to the House. Some hon. Members opposed the original European Assembly elections legislation in 1978. At that stage, Ministers were first told that they could vote for the European Assembly Elections Bill and were then told that they would have to abstain or be sacked. That was the controversy then, but the Bill was duly passed. The only people who were opposed to that legislation were people who supported Labour Party policy. The vast majority of the Conservative Party did not raise a single critical murmur. It was consensus legislation. It was the one-party State operating—the usual

area that operates in Northern Ireland, Home Office and defence matters. But, fortunately, that is beginning to change.
Conservative Members—especially those pro-European fanatics—ran into the Lobbies to get the European Assembly Elections Bill on to the statute book. No question was raised about the reporting of the Boundary Commission. I hope that the Minister will explain why this sudden surge of interest has occurred. Why was it not considered in 1978, when the Conservatives had such an influential position over a minority Labour Government? They could easily have said that they were not prepared to vote for the principle of the Bill unless an alteration was made in the commission system of reporting. They would have been in a crucial position, because without Conservative votes the Labour Government of the day would not have been able to get that legislation through. It was as much their legislation as the legislation of the Labour Government. Their votes were necessary to secure the passage of the European Assembly Elections Bill 1978, which this Bill modifies.
Why the tardiness in bringing forward this amendment? We know why. Those hon. Members who accept that the legislation has been passed but that sooner or later we shall have to withdraw from the Common Market understand that there are Members of the European Assembly. I spoke on behalf of a prospective Member in the European Assembly election campaign. We understand that, if we are to have Members of the European Assembly, it surely makes sense to alter the European election constituencies on the basis of United Kingdom constituencies—on the basis of the Boundary Commission's report on Westminster constituencies. But that will now be pushed to one side.
Even critics—such as myself—of the original legislation cannot see any basis of logic in the Government's action on this legislation. There is no logic. The Government are not interested in democracy. They are interested in Conservative majorities. As my hon. Friend said, by knocking out the requirement of the Boundary Commission to report on European Assembly boundaries before reporting on Westminster boundaries, they save 12 to 15 months. That is the period of time by which they hope to have the new boundaries for Westminster seats sewn up. The phrase "sewn up" suggests some backstairs, clandestine dealing, and that is precisely what is is. When parliamentary seats are fixed so that electoral advantage is gained it is known as gerrymandering.
If the Tories had raised that point in 1978 and had said that the reporting of the Boundary Commission was a matter about which they did not agree, we could have understood it, because there would have been a certain amount of logic. But they did not have that ground. They had no ground whatever, except the desire to get the commission report as quickly as possible in order to gain what they fondly imagine to be is electoral advantage. That is a muddy sort of attitude, and what is worse is the fact that the Government are cloaking that attitude for all sorts of reasons, bar reality. If they told the House that they would gain 15 or 20 seats from the boundary reorganisation, that they wanted to make sure because they were in a hell of a mess, that the economy was dying fast on its feet, that they had a woman in the lead who was trailing them down to an economic and electoral disaster and that they dared not stop her, and that the only way in which the position could be rescued would be to try to get


the boundaries altered and recover a few seats, that would be honest and straightforward. After catching our breaths at their honesty, at least we could say that they had given a few honest, straightforward reasons for a change. But they have not even done that. They have tried to cloak their attitude with many reasons, all of which disguise the truth.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said—this is what is so annoying about the whole position—they are sacking civil servants left, right and centre. They are getting rid of civil servants from all the crucial areas in which people who are least able to fend for themselves have benefited—social security, employment, and so on. Every area of Government activity is under threat, except, apparently, the Boundary Commission. There, the Government are taking people on in their eagerness to get some sort of electoral insurance because of the disastrous policies that they are following. Pressure has been put upon them by Conservative Members representing marginal seats, who have been pressing for changes in order to save their seats. The only way that they can get what they want is by gerrymandering.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: It really sticks in the gullet to hear the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) talk in that way when we remember what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the then Home Secretary, did in 1969 and 1970. It ill becomes any Labour Member to talk about gerrymandering. If there was any gerrymandering in this country in the whole of the twentieth century it was committed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East.

Mr. Cryer: I find that surprising, coming from an hon. Member who is critical of what he considers to be gerrymandering but I would say was not. Be that as it may; I was not present in the House at the time. I read the arguments that took place, and I saw the massive press campaign about the decision of the then Home Secretary—a press campaign that we have not noticed at present. No doubt the knighthood for that valiant exponent of photography, Sir Larry Lamb, had nothing to do with the fact that The Sun has not exposed this gerrymandering, or that the Daily Express or Daily Mail have not run a campaign, as they did in 1969 and 1970.

Mr. Brotherton: Tell the truth.

Mr. Cryer: Why is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about his Government? My bet is that he will—I was going to say stagger into the Lobby, but that is a little unfair—go into the Lobby and vote for this legislation. With that background, any criticism that the hon. Gentleman makes of decisions that are made ostensibly for one reason but in reality for another must apply on the basis of the debates that have taken place. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not oppose this legislation since he is so concerned about standards of public life.

Mr. George Cunningham: Should not my hon. Friend point out that it would be a strange situation if we were to believe that what the Government were trying to do in 1970 was to hold up an arrangement—which was in force by 1974, and under which we won the election—in favour of a system in 1970 under which we lost the election? It seems that the thing that we were trying to prevent was actually more in our interest than the thing that we were trying to lead on to.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. One of the complaints that I had when I entered this House was from people who would have benefited had things been allowed to take their course prior to 1970. So it is not true to suggest, as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) does, that the position was to the advantage of the Labour Party. But, as I said, even if that were the case—

Mr. Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I shall give way when I have finished my sentence. The hon. Gentleman is getting excited but he ought to advance criticisms fairly across the board. If there had been anything wrong then—and I do not accept that there was—the hon. Gentleman must vote against this legislation now.

Mr. Brotherton: What I was saying was that the way in which the then Home Secretary acted was to the advantage of the Labour Party, not to the disadvantage of the electorate.

Mr. Cryer: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was making is that that is debatable and that it was not entirely to the advantage of the Labour Party. But I do not want to go down that road. If the hon. Member for Louth is arguing that an executive decision has resulted in legislation being brought before Parliament for political reasons and he thinks that that is wrong and that this legislation has no other conceivable basis, in logic or in anything else, he should vote against it.
The Bill is an example of the warped priorities of the Government. They have increased expenditure on the Boundary Commission apparently in order to further their own cause. They have increased the speed—or so they hope—of the reporting of the Westminster Boundary Commission in order, so they think, to gain electoral advantage.
I must put on record the fact that nothing will save this Tory Government. It is the experience of the people, indelibly written in their lives, that the Tory Party is the party of unemployment. That is the reputation that is hanging round the necks of the Tories. That is all they have been able to achieve in office. They will not be able to improve the economic position before the next election. Things are running too late for them to be able to do that. No matter how much they flutter and flap, they will face electoral defeat.

Mr. Russell Johnston: One of the basic weaknesses of the first-past-the-post system is that it produces capricious results. I find it difficult to be in sympathy with the harangue to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). It may be terribly unfair of me, but I suspect that had the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and his colleagues been sitting where the Minister is sitting they would almost certainly be doing exactly the same as the Government have been doing, and justifying it in exactly the same language. All the talk about gerrymandering—apart from the fact that it is a clear product of the system that we have—has a little bit of humbug in it.
The purpose of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, is to relieve the Boundary Commission of the responsibility of producing


simultaneously the recommendations on the British constituencies and the Euro-constituencies. If, however, an agreement had been achieved in the European Parliament, and thereafter in the Council of Ministers, the two matters could have been disengaged at about the same time, or only marginally later, and it could have been done against the background of an agreement for fair elections for Europe.
Sadly, I do not see the Bill in the way in which, perhaps, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury saw it. It seemed to suggest to him that the Government were on the edge of accepting a system of proportional representation. It suggests to me, on the contrary, that the Government have decided to confirm the existing arrangements.
The Bill is erroneously titled the "European Assembly Elections" Bill because it has virtually nothing to do with European Assembly elections; it has to do with Westminster elections. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury correctly pointed out—as did the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) in a very pertinent speech in the Second Reading debate—that the likelihood is that the European elections in 1984 will be held on the basis of the Euro-constituencies of 1979. The Boundary Commission review will not be properly under way until the appeals—which will presumably take place in March, April and May—against the recommendations of Westminster have been heard. The building bricks will not be formed until then; therefore, it will probably mean that the recommendations on the Euro-constituencies will not be completed before 1984.
If we accept the Minister's contention that all this is about democracy, about fair representation, and all that sort of thing, and that it justifies the acceleration of procedure—which the Conservative Party accepted without fuss when it was originally introduced—why is it quite unimportant in regard to Euro-constituencies for 1984, when at the same time it is regarded as vital for Westminster constituencies in 1983, or whenever the next general election is to be held?
I ask my next question simply out of curiosity. I do not understand why the Boundary Commission takes such a terribly long time to do its work. This may sound arrogant, but I have never seen a set of commission recommendations for parliamentary constituencies which I could not have equalled or improved upon by sitting down over a weekend with a group of people who knew something about politics, and a map. I do not mean a group of politicians all of one party; I mean a group from all parties concerned. There is a fair amount of hocus-pocus in the way in which the commission operates. A group of people such as I have suggested could sit down and agree fairly quickly, over a weekend, the sort of thing that the commission takes months and months to produce. It would not be very different at end of the day. If the Minister will relieve me of my deep ignorance about the travails of the commission, I shall be obliged to him.
I do not regard the Bill as a necessary piece of legislation. Its timing implies—for me at least—that the Government are not adopting the view on the system of elections for Europe that I very much hope they will adopt.

Mr. Mayhew: I shall postpone my remarks about the speech made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr.

Cryer) until a little later. At present, I could not muster the restraint or dignity displayed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who described the speech as a harangue.
It might not be amiss to describe what the Bill does. Those who have heard and those who will read what has been said by Labour Members will discover very little about the Bill's true content and purpose. It is short and concise. It is designed to ensure that no unnecessary impediment is placed in the path of the Boundary Commissions for Great Britain when they put forward their recommendations to the Government and to the House for the redistribution of seats for the British Parliament.
I should have thought that such a measure would attract the support of those who purport to have the interests of democracy at heart. The hon. Member for Keighley favoured the House with a slightly longer attendance in the Chamber on Second Reading than occurred during the remaining stages of the Bill. On Third Reading he breezed in, sat for a few moments, and delivered his observations. From his attendance on Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman will know that the House was told that gross disparities existed because shifts in the population had taken place since the last redistribution. Eleven constituencies contain more than 100,000 electors and 14 constituencies contain fewer than 40,000 electors. It is surprising that those who set such store on the principle of equality are prepared to countenance the possibility—I put it no higher than that, because the possibility is bad enough—that the next general election will be fought on boundaries that still produce gross and indefensible disparities. We are anxious to remove an impediment that lies in the path of the Boundary Commission and is unnecessary to retain.
Why did not the Conservative Party vote against this provision in 1978? First, the 1978 Bill was guillotined, and there was no debate on schedule 2. In addition, there was only a short time between proceedings in Parliament and the elections to the European Parliament. Labour Members may say that because a mistake was made in 1978—if that was the case—and because legislation was enacted that embodied an unsatisfactory and dangerous provision, it should be perpetuated in 1981. I would not share their brand of conservatism. There are no more dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives than those who follow the brand of politics represented by the hon. Member for Keighley.
The Boundary Commission might be obliged to put its recommendations—made in pursuance to a duty imposed by the House under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949—into cold storage for 15 months. That is the best estimate. It would have to do that, because in 1978 Parliament laid down that when the commission made recommendations for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it would also have to make recommendations for the European constituencies. It is an absurd provision.
Today, the Government have asked Parliament to remove that obstacle. We have sought parliamentary approval openly and honestly. I cannot find any ground for criticism. Those who accept the criticisms that have been levelled at the Government will also wish to compare the open way in which the Government have come to Parliament with what happened in 1969. What happened then is established in the record and is beyond question.


The Boundary Commission produced a report and recommendations that were extremely embarrassing to the Labour Government. That Government sought to evade their lawful duty and were corrected by the courts. What did they do? They said that they would fulfil the letter of the law and that they would lay an order, as they were required to do, but that they would bring their members into the Chamber under whip and would require them to vote against the order. Such action gained a high place in the list of unconstitutional disgraces that have blemished parliamentary history.
It ill behoves those who come into the Chamber for a short time to take a high moral tone. It ill behoves such hon. Members to argue that because there may be an electoral advantage to the Government—I do not know whether there is—in seeking to ensure that the next election is fought on boundaries that produce a near-equality of electorate, the whole proceedings are tinted with dishonesty. That is pretty rich. I give way to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). I doubt whether he would say any such thing.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I do not know whether to take the Minister's remarks as a compliment. Is he suggesting that there is something unconstitutional about hon. Members voting against a Boundary Commission's recommendations if they are laid in the form of an order before the House? Whatever the commission may recommend, it is for the House and the other place to make a decision.

Mr. Mayhew: That is a thoroughly Old Testament view. As such, perhaps it commends itself to the hon. Gentleman. Everyone knows that the Labour Government clung to office by every device. Their attitude cost them their period in office. They were turned out of office in 1970 because they were seen to be cheats.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: I shall not give way. I have sat for about an hour and a quarter and listened to things that should never have been said. I shall now say something myself.
The Bill is short and simple. The clause is designed to ensure that the next elections—at least in this country—are fought on a basis that is compatible with democracy. I have been asked whether the Boundary Commission will be able to complete its report by 1984 for the European elections. I have had no information to the contrary. Whether or not the report is completed, it is in the interests of all those interested in democracy and the proper and effective conduct of elections in the United Kingdom that the Boundary Commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should not be impeded unnecessarily in the course of their duties. That is the purpose of the Bill. It is a purpose that must commend itself to everyone of good will. That is why I have confidence in recommending the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 240.

Division No. 47]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Tom


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert (Preston N)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)


Alison, Michael
Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Robert





Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Goodhart, Philip


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhew, Victor


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, John
Gorst, John


Body, Richard
Gow, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, Andrew
Grieve, Percy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Gummer John Selwyn


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brotherton, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg and Scun)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hastings Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buck, Antony
Hawkins, Paul


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney


Burden, Sir Frederick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Butcher, John
Heddle, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Churchill, W. S.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hooson, Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Costain, Sir Albert
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dover, Denshore
Kershaw, Anthony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kimball, Marcus


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P broke)
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael


Emery, Peter
Lee, John


Eyre, Reginald
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John


Fell, Anthony
Luce, Richard


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lyell, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacGregor, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Tony






Marshall Michael (Arundel)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shepherd, Richard


Mawby, Ray
Shersby, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Silvester, Fred


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Mayhew, Patrick
Skeet, T.H.H.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speller, Tony


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Spence, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Hector
Sproat, Ian


Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Moore, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stanley, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stevens, Martin


Mudd, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, J. (E Renfrewshire)


Myles, David
Stokes, John


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Nott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Osborn, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Rt. Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Trippier, David


Parkinson, Cecil
Trotter, Neville


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
van Straubenzee, W.R.


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Waddington, David


Pollock, Alexander
Wakeham, John


Porter, Barry
Waldegrave, Hon William


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walker, B. (Perth)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walters, Dennis


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Ward, John


Raison, Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rees-Davies, W.R.
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitney, Raymond


Ridsdale, Julian
Wickenden, Keith


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Royle, Sir, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. Anthony Berry




NOES


Abse, Leo
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Adams, Allen
Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)


Allaun, Frank
Bradley, Tom


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Ashley, Rt Hon Ernest
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cant, R.B.


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)





Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cook, Robin F.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cowans, Harry
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Kinnock, Neil


Craigen, J. M.
Lambie, David


Crowther, J. S.
Lamborn, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh


Dewar, Donald
McCusker, H.


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dorm and, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dubs, Alfred
Maclennan, Robert


Dunn, James A.
McNally, Thomas


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mc Taggart, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Mc William, John


Eastham, Ken
Magee, Bryan


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Marks, Kenneth


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


English, Michael
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Evans, John (Newton)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Field, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Morton, George


Freud, Clement
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Garrett, W.E. (Wallsend)
Newens, Stanley


George, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ogden, Eric


Ginsburg, David
O'Halloran, Michael


Golding, John
O'Neill, Martin


Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Graham, Ted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Palmer, Arthur


Grant, John (Islington C)
Park, George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parker, John


Hamilton, W.W. (C'tral Fife)
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Penhaligon, David


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Race, Reg


Home Robertson, John
Radica, Giles


Homewood, William
Ress, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Horam, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rooker, J. W.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper, John


John, Brynmor
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)






Rowlands, Ted
Torney, Tom


Sandelson, Neville
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Sever, John
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Sheerman, Barry
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Watkins, David


Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)
Weetch, Ken


Silverman, Julius
Welsh, Michael


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
White, Frank R.


Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Soley, Clive
Whitlock, William


Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)


Stoddart, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stott, Roger
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (C'try S E)


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Mr. Ron Leighton and


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Tinn, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Water Bill

Order for Second Reading read

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As befits a short Minister, this is a short Bill. In the Government's view, it is uncontroversial, but we regard it as important. Indeed, as will become clear, it is vital for the British Waterways Board that it becomes law as soon as possible.
I should like to place the Bill in context as far as the water industry is concerned. Let me make it quite clear that it does not in any way affect the structure and basic powers of water authorities as provided for in the Water Act 1973; in so far as it affects existing legislation, it does so only very much at the margins.
The Bill provides for three unrelated matters. First—this is its raison d'etre—it provides for an increase in the borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board. Secondly, it seeks to amend existing legislation with regard to the supply and use of water for fire-fighting purposes. Thirdly, it seeks to change the law whereby water authorities can insist on separate service pipes to individual dwellings. I do not want at this stage to dwell on the detail of these provisions—the Committee stage is the proper place for that—but I should like to cover, briefly, the background to our proposals.
I am aware that many hon. Members here tonight take a close interest in the board's activities, but for the benefit of those who are less well informed I ought perhaps to say a word or two about the board's background and the history of its borrowing powers.
The board was set up in 1962 under the Transport Act of that year. It is currently responsible for maintaining about 2,000 miles of inland waterway, including 350 miles of commercial routes and 1,100 miles of canals used for pleasure cruising. It also operates docks, warehouses and terminals in connection with its freight-carrying waterways and is responsible for the amenity development of its recreational waterways.
The board's income does not cover its costs. It therefore receives an annual grant from the Exchequer to cover the deficit on its revenue funding; on average, it amounts to 60 per cent. of total revenue costs. Capital expenditure is funded through borrowing, which is subject to limit under existing legislation. The limit originally set, in 1962, at £30 million was to allow for the board's commencing debt—about £19·25 million—and for future borrowing. Under the Transport Act 1968 the commencing debt was written down to £3·75 million and, as a result, the overall borrowing limit was reduced to £12 million. By 1977 the board was in danger of exhausting this limit, and it was raised by the previous Administration to its present level of £20 million. We now propose to authorise a further increase.
I am sure that few hon. Members will disagree with me when I say that the task of preserving our inland waterways is extremely important but, at the same time, it is extremely onerous and costly. Once the lifeblood of our industry, they have, over the last 150 years, gradually seen their trade eroded by other forms of transport—in particular, the railways—yet they still transport some


commercial freight; and, of course, over the last 20 years they have become increasingly important as a leisure facility.
The need to maintain our canals and waterways is thus as great now as it was in earlier years, but not for the original purposes. The Government recognise this. Regrettably, many stretches of waterway, including some of the marvellously engineered aquaducts and tunnels, are in a less than adequate state of repair, due to their age, decay and many years of past neglect. The tragic collapse of the shaft in the Wast Hill tunnel in Birmingham during repair works is but one example of the problems that the board faces. At the same time, the cost of keeping the system going, including the capital costs of buildings, plant and equipment, has continually risen. Inevitably, this is in part due to the effects of inflation.
Borrowing has also increased to cover the costs of replacing essential capital assets and undertaking major improvement work, particularly to the Sheffield and South Yorkshire navigation. Hon. Members may know that, when finished, this scheme will enable 700-ton barges to reach Mexborough and 400-ton vessels to reach Rotherham. This will clearly improve the competitiveness of the canal and it is hoped that it will successfully demonstrate that our inland waterways can have a viable future. The total cost of the scheme is estimated at £14 million, and even with generous grants from the European regional development fund and South Yorkshire county council it makes a heavy call on the board's borrowing powers and will continue to do so in the coming months.
Between 1977, when the board's borrowing powers were last increased, and 1980 we estimate that the board has had to borrow an extra £8 million for capital items. As a result, its present borrowing limit is likely to be exhausted in the very near future if account is taken of its facility for temporary borrowing. The Government therefore propose to increase the board's borrowing powers under the Bill from the present limit of £20 million to £35 million. We intend that £5 million should be authorised on Royal Assent and a further £10 million, as and when needed, by order or orders of the Secretary of State, subject to affirmative resolution. In this way, the House will retain close control over the board's borrowing limit, but will also have the flexibility to authorise limited extra borrowing without recourse to a further Bill.
I turn now to the second main provision in the Bill: the exemption from charges of water taken for fire-fighting. This will come as no surprise to those right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-west region who have been in regular correspondence on this subject since 1978.
Under present law—schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945, which has been applied over the years to almost the whole of England and Wales—water undertakers, whether water authorities or water companies, are not permitted to charge for taking water from a public hydrant for fire fighting purposes. But where, say, an employer installs fire fighting equipment such as a sprinkler system in his premises, it is open to water authorities to charge for the benefit of having that supply available and for any water taken through such a system for fire fighting. Indeed, under section 30 of the Water Act 1973, they are bound to have regard to the cost of providing any service in

setting their charges and in doing so not to show undue preference to or to discriminate unduly against any class of consumer.
One water authority interpreted this as obliging it to charge for fire fighting supplies as though they were in regular daily use. This would have involved many consumers in substantial additional costs. I do not challenge the view of the water authority in question about its legal obligations as they now stand under section 30, but a major issue of principle is involved here. Any charge on water for fire fighting can be regarded as a bar to public safety. The Government are vitally concerned that there should be no such impediment to the installation and use of fire-fighting equipment in private premises used by the public. I feel sure that the House will share this view, particularly with the memories so fresh in our minds of those terrible fires at the Woolworth's store in Manchester and in hotels in America.
Accordingly, clause 2 provides for the exemption from charges of the supply and use of water for fire-fighting purposes and for testing fire-fighting equipment. Clause 3 brings into effect throughout the whole of England and Wales the related provisions about fire hydrants and the taking of water from them. The combined effect will be that the law on water for public and private fire fighting will be the same in all parts.
There are two supplementary points that I should like to make about this provision. The first is that we regard section 30 as the proper charging framework for the water industry. It is similar to charging provisions in other nationalised industries. Only in exceptional circumstances like these—public safety from fire—would we be prepared to move away from it. Secondly, this provision seeks to establish a general principle. The application of that principle to consumers' circumstances would be left to be worked out in orders made by my right hon. Friend. Some of these orders will be reasonably straightforward. Others will be complicated, particularly those concerned with cases where the consumer has one connection to the mains for all purposes. We shall, of course, consult fully before making any orders, and we shall try to make them as straightforward as possible. But the important point is to establish a general principle that will apply to all cases.
I want now to say a few words about the third provision of the Bill: the removal of the power of water undertakers to insist on a separate service pipe to existing dwellings. A service pipe connects a house or a group of houses to the main water supply. The Bill provides that water authorities may insist on a separate service pipe to existing houses only where there is a genuine operational or management need. It will also allow them to require that all new houses should be built with separate service pipes.
The present position, which the Bill would replace, is that before the Water Act 1945 came into force—which happened at different times in different parts of the country—many houses, especially those built in terraces, were built with a common service pipe, that is, one pipe supplying a group of houses. This causes problems if the common pipe needs renewal and the cost has to be shared among the house owners. The Water Act 1945 provided that all houses built after it came into effect should have a separate service pipe, except where a single owner of a group of houses agreed to pay the water charges for all of them. It also provided that it should apply to houses built before the Act only if the common pipe was defective, or


where payment of a bill for water services was in arrears or where a single house had been divided into a number of dwellings.
In some cases local authorities continued to build on the common supply principle. This is slightly cheaper, but can cause difficulties where a council house is sold. The new owner may then be required to install, at his own expense, a separate service pipe. The nonsense of this situation was emphasised by a case in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), where the purchaser of a council house faced a bill for over £2,000 simply to install a new service pipe. There was nothing wrong with the existing one, but it was water authority policy to insist that a new pipe be installed. The Bill will simplify the position, removing the distinction between jointly owned houses and others, and still allow water undertakers to insist on separate pipes where there is a genuine need. Before I close I should outline, for the House's benefit, what each clause of the Bill contains. Clause 1 relates to the borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board and provides for an increase in the borrowing limit from the present £20 million to £35 million. Clause 2 provides for the exemption from charges of the supply and use of water for fire fighting and testing fire-fighting equipment. It seeks to empower the Secretary of State to lay down by order the method to be used in calculating charges where a supply is used only partly for fire-fighting purposes. Clause 3 seeks to apply throughout England and Wales provisions relating to the supply and use of water from hydrants for fire-fighting purposes. Clause 4 seeks to remove the power of water authorities to require separate service pipes for existing dwellings, but enables them to require separate service pipes in all new dwellings. Clause 5 describes the short title and extent of the Act.

Mr. Denis Howell: My speech will be somewhat longer that that of the Minister because I want to spend some time on the proposals that we were promised would be included in this major Bill but which seem to have disappeared at a very early stage.
First, it would be churlish of me not to welcome the Under-Secretary to our discussions on these issues, and I do so most sincerely. He is a most agreeable colleague and one who takes an interest in his ministerial position. I therefore wish him well in his new post. I am sorry if my first speech to which he will reply is less than welcoming. That is not my intention. I wish him well.
The Bill contains nothing about sewage disposal and drainage, two matters which cause considerable problems throughout the country. We are faced with the collapse of an antiquated sewerage system, some of which was built over 200 years ago, and its dire consequences particularly in industrial areas in the North-West, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and other areas including London. Yet there is no provision in the Bill to deal with those two matters, and those of us who are responsible for the maintenance of public health are therefore gravely concerned.
The Bill is a puny measure. It does hardly anything to tackle the great problems. Moreover, it is astonishing that such a measure should come from the present Government, because clause 1 proposes to increase the money supply. Labour Members happen to be in favour of the Bill, because we believe that it is important to have greater investment in the water industry and in the canals

system. Taking into account all that has been said by the Government during the past 18 months, one would have expected a better justification for an increase in the money supply of this magnitude. There has been virtually no justification.
In a moment I shall come to the firebrand speech made by the Minister of State at the Conservative Party conference, when so many promises were made. Those promises seem to have gone by the board.
Clause 1 increases the money supply without justification from the Minister about whether the amount of the increase is adequate or inadequate—and it is probably the latter. Clause 2 contains a remarkable proposal. It seeks to switch the cost of providing water for fire-fighting from industry and commerce to the domestic householder. This is another matter that greatly concerns us. The clause proposes to add a further 1 per cent. of Government-generated inflation to the cost of all water bills—quite apart from any potential increase in staffing, a matter to which I shall refer later.
In the past 18 months we have been promised a flood of action to deal with the rising tide of anger which we were told that everyone in the country felt about the water industry generally. This Bill is not a flood of action; it is a drip produced by wets. It is totally irrelevant to present needs. It does none of the things that the Minister told us as recently as last October were absolutely necessary. For the sake of greater accuracy, I have a copy of that speech. I shall not bore the House by reading the entire speech, but I am sure that the House will be amused by some of the quotations from it. Certainly I shall not read that passage which refers to me as "Minister for Drought, Floods and Snow." As is typical the Minister inaccurately referred to me as having taken up a vain position, whereas everybody else thought the opposite. They thought that I ended the drought, calmed the storm, abated the floods and thawed the snows. The Minister should get his facts right.
I come to more serious matters. The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, when addressing the Conservative Party conference three months ago, gave a list by which we must judge the Bill and its inadequacies. In a startling speech to the conference, he listed measures necessary for the water industry. He said:
we want a properly-accountable industry … we want a fair basis of charging.
Not a word about that need appears in the Bill. The Government have not taken the opportunity to put forward on behalf of all domestic users a Conservative solution to overcharging.
The Minister went on to identify an even more specific anomaly when he said:
Let us not forget that a quarter of all households … are single person households, and it is on them in particular that the unfairness falls most heavily. We recognise this and we intend to find a fairer system
Not one single-person household will be helped by the Bill. There is a switch in charging from industry to the domestic user and single-person households will be imposed upon even more.
The Minister continued by expressing the need to do something to get the system operating right. He said that one-third of all local authority members attended fewer than half the meetings. He instanced the Southern water authority. Perhaps he has referred it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is a typical way of passing the buck.
Then followed a magnificent passage which I have headed "Action". The Minister promised, following the Conservatives' review of the water industry:
We intend to have a special drive to reduce the waste of water in the present system … in some areas as much as 50 per cent. of the water that goes into the system remains totally unaccounted for.
That is right. He went on:
No system can operate efficiently with that degree of waste. We shall give that a high priority.
Where is that high priority in the Bill? Where is its place in the Government's pronouncements upon the needs of the water industry?
The Minister went on:
We are stopping Labour's misguided water equalisation policy.
That is one promise that the Government have half kept. They have said that they will not introduce any more equalisation proposals. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), has returned to the Chamber, because the Government have taken credit for ending the water equalisation programme which we introduced. Many hon. Members will remember the discussions in Committee when it was said that the proposals were important in terms of assistance to water consumers in Wales, the South-West, the North and Anglia. When we debated the order, the Minister said that the Government would not desert their friends. He said that they would stand by their Welsh friends. They should have used the Bill as a vehicle. It will cost the Welsh water authority £3 million a year in loss of support as a result of ending the equalisation proposals. I am told that the cost to each Welsh householder will be a significant factor this year in increasing the cost of water. The same will apply in the South-West, the North, Anglia and other areas.
The Government have done virtually nothing to honour their pledge to stand by the Welsh water user. All that they have done is to make a slight adjustment in the target for the Welsh water authority. It will be given an additional two years to reach its financial target. It will be given five years instead of the three years set for other regional water authorities. Not only is that totally inadequate and a gross imposition on Welsh and other domestic water users but it breaks a pledge given from the Dispatch Box.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continuation orders under the equalisation scheme would have resulted generally in more "disequalisation"? Is he not aware of the extent of Government support by way of domestic rate relief in Wales compared with that in England?

Mr. Howell: That is one of the biggest red herrings that I have heard from the Dispatch Box. The rate relief to Wales has nothing to do with water charges. Water was taken out of local authorities' sphere of influence under the Water Act 1973.

Mr. Tony Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to go on about a lot of matters not contained in the Bill? This is a Second Reading debate and we should talk about the Bill.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deptuy Speaker. The long title of the Bill states that the Bill is to
make further provision relating to water supply.
Is not what the right hon. Gentleman saying pertinent to that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): On Second Reading hon. Members are entitled to say what they hoped would be in the Bill. On Third Reading one is limited to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for assuring the House that my remarks are pertinent. I am astonished that Government Members do not know that on Second Reading we debate all matters covered by the Bill as well as provisions which hon. Members believe should be included in the Bill. The point of order by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) is further evidence of the disquiet and discomfort felt by Government supporters as the issues are outlined. I am not surprised.
The Minister told the conference that the water industry had suffered
culpable neglect under the last Government. They are great at talking about problems but absolutely hopeless at doing anything about them.
Here we have a Minister who complains that we are hopeless, yet he disregarded the White Paper that we introduced, which said that this should set the pattern for the future of the water industry. He has thrown out that White Paper. He has made great capital out of the impositions on private householders. By his omissions from the Bill he has betrayed every one of the sentiments that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have uttered in recent years.
I wish to make a few brief comments about the dangerous situation faced by the water industry in terms of a possible national dispute. It would be irresponsible not to be concerned about that looming dispute. The situation is potentially catastrophic, both for the industry and for the public. As we all know, the employers have taken what seems to be an intransigent position on their offer of 7·9 per cent. The unions have balloted their members and are receiving countrywide support for their opposition to the employers' final offer.
One hopes, of course, that the two sides will be able to come together and to reach a settlement. Indeed, they will have to do so. It would be unthinkable for the country to be plunged into a national water strike, with the dire consequences that that would bring in terms of public health. Water from some rivers, such as the Thames, is used four, five or six times. If water taken out of the rivers could not be cleaned and had to be used for drinking purposes, the situation would be extremely serious.
I therefore take this opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm that the National Water Council is a free agent in negotiating a settlement—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to proceed up to now, but this has nothing to do with the Bill. He must restrict his remarks to what he wishes to be done about the Bill. There is nothing about industrial relations in it.

Mr. Howell: I agree. I do not wish to trespass and I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I am bound to say, if we have a National Water Council, that the


financial provisions made in the Bill for the water industry will prove to be totally inadequate. I was merely hoping, because I thought that it might be helpful—with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I fully appreciate that I must seek on this point—to get the Minister, without leading him too far, to confirm that the National Water Council was a free agent and was not subject to Government dictation. I also hope that at the end of the day some form of conciliation or arbitration will be introduced, in the interests of all consumers. The form, of course, would need to be agreeable to the unions and to the industry as a whole. I believe that it would have been irresponsible not to have made that point in the debate today.
Having said that, I shall return to the subject of the Bill. Clause 1, as the Minister explained, extends the borrowing power. We shall wish to examine in Committee the proposal that additional borrowing may be authorised by the Secretary of State without necessarily coming back to the House, or rather in a different way from that which has obtained heretofore. That would deprive the House of the opportunity, in particular, to discuss the affairs of the British Waterways Board and the state of the canals system.
Secondly, although the Bill increases the borrowing powers for capital from £20 million to £35 million, that proposal cannot be divorced from the amount of grant in aid to the board for revenue purposes. The interest charges on the money borrowed for capital works for our canals system must be paid from the board's income a large part of which is grant generated.
The Minister has not yet referred to the figures for grant in aid. In 1979, the Labour Government announced a figure of £21 million. At today's figures that would be equal to £32 million. To carry out maintenance work on the canal system at the level that we agreed the board would need to receive £32 million this year. But the grant is only £27 million—a reduction of £5 million.
That reduction of £5 million is equal to the additional £5 million which, after prolonged discussions in the House, a report from a Select Committee and the expression of grave concern particularly by the chairman of the British Waterways Board, we were able to achieve following our negotiations with the Treasury. This shortfall—or cut—of £5 million this year therefore puts the British Waterways Board back to its position at that time, when, with the support of many Conservative Members, it complained about the inadequacy of its position. That is a very important matter to which attention should be drawn.
As a result of this cut, the Frankel report which stated that we had 12 years' maintemance work to do on the canals and pointed out how dangerous was the condition of some of our tunnels and locks, has been effectively abandoned for the time being. I am not surprised that the board has already found that, with the collapse of tunnels, bridges and locks, an additional £2 million worth of work is necessary to deal with the deteriorating situation this year alone.
At the time when the Select Committee reported, and when the Labour Government produced their White Paper, one of the great discussions that we had was about the role of the water industry. I took note of what the Minister said and I welcomed it because, if he does not mind my saying so, it was a little more realistic than the attitude that some of his colleagues have taken in the past. We all wish to see

the waterways industry carrying as much freight as it can. We all support the South Yorkshire navigation scheme, the money for which was found by the previous Administration. We all have high hopes of that scheme and wish to encourage it. But the truth is, as we all know—I believe that the Minister himself said this—that the future of the canals system in this country will be largely bound up with the recreational and leisure industries. That will certainly be true for the overwhelming majority of the 2,000 miles of our canals system.
I shall quote one or two comments that were made in the past about these matters. Having been on the receiving end of considerable criticism from a Select Committee, from the chairman of the British Waterways Board and from others in the past, when the grant in aid is put back to the position that obtained before the Labour Government improved it in 1979, I am bound to ask where the board now stands in face of this desertion of all the policies and all the provision that we made. There is not a word now from the Select Committee. Not a letter has any Member received, so far as I know, from the British Waterways Board. There has been no complaint. The only body which, to its great credit, has dealt with these matters is the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, the consumer undertaking that looks after the interests of the users of our canals. It has drawn attention to this matter.
One would have thought that the energetic members of the British Waterways Board would be on their feet disclaiming this cutback in the resources that it was promised, after a considerable struggle, by the previous Administration. However, there has not been a word from the Minister or from the board. I feel that it is my public duty to draw these deficiencies to the attention of the House.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Although I was not a member of the Select Committee to which he referred, of all the South Yorkshire Members I was perhaps the most impatient and restive about getting an early decision in respect of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire navigation. It ought to be placed on record that the previous Government responded favourably and that work is proceeding, but I shudder to think of the prospects for the British Waterways Board now that he is no longer in charge.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I was saying—[Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that, although he may have forgotten what I said, the canal users of this country—who are dedicated and devoted people and a strong lobby—will want answers to these questions.
Paragraph 61 of our White Paper stated:
the Government remain convinced of the desirability of bringing the management of the waterways into the water industry and creating a national navigation authority. It is … necessary to establish the best permanent arrangements for waterways, and in particular the way they should be financed.
In other words, we lave said that the whole future of the canal system could be safeguarded, particularly financially, only if it were directly linked with the water industry as a whole, which is so much larger. That is a solution that the Waterways Board did not like. I notice that on 15 November 1977, in paragraph 293 of his evidence to the Select Committee, the chairman forthrightly supported the line for total independence of the board.
I remember making many speeches both in the country and this House at that time to the effect that, unless the canal system and the British Waterways Board were brought into a close relationship—indeed, were brought within the water industry—every time there was a financial crisis, they would be the first to suffer. I said that they would positively be at the mercy of the Treasury and departmental Ministers who had to make savings and that they would be the first to be cut.
From the figures that I have already given, I regret to say that those prophecies have proved only too true. I return to what we said in the White Paper. Those of us who believe that the canal system is part of our national heritage and ought to be maintained because of its industrial area, archaeological history as well as its potential for leisure and recreation must ask how it is to be financed. It must be financed either by relying upon the water industry as a whole to maintain it as an integral part of the water industry, or by grant in aid. Now that they understand the cuts that have been announced and the deteriorating financial future that the BWB appears to face, those who were sceptical about the merits of my White Paper proposal in this respect may be more convinced about the logic of the proposals.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is it reasonable to expect parts of the country that have no part of this canal system in their midst to pay for it? Will the right hon. Gentleman state categorically whether, in the unlikely event of his returning to power, he would end the British Waterways Board as it is now constituted?

Mr. Howell: I believe that every word of our White Paper is becoming more and more justified with every day that passes. The proposal that it contained for bringing the canal system within the main water industry, while maintaining its position as a national navigation authority and its independence within the wider water industry, is the way forward. At some other time the House will have to return to this matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked why someone should pay for the canal system if he did not have a canal running through his back garden. The answer is, surely, that the canal system is a national asset, which is increasingly enjoyed by people throughout the country, wherever they happen to live. People want to go on to our canals. Incidentally, one of the difficulties with which the BWB is now faced is that this year, because of the collapse of parts of the system—in fairness to the Minister, he referred to this—people who have invested large sums of money, such as the boating industry, boat owners and others who want to use the canals, will find that their enjoyment of the canal system this summer will be seriously limited as a result of the Government's withdrawal of funds.
I have looked in vain through the 1979 annual report of the British Waterways Board and through my correspondence, and I find that there is not one word from that authority about the effect of the cuts and the desertion involved in the cutbacks from the commitments of the industry.
As I said, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, in a briefing that it issued on 16 January, drew attention to the disturbing effects of these developments. It stated:

In particular, major closures are affecting users of the waterways and the Board are unable to give any firm indication of when these closures will be remedied. They include:
Netherton Tunnel on the Birmingham Canal Navigations
Stoke Bardolph Lock on the River Trent Navigation
Blisworth Tunnel on the Grand Union Canal.
I am not surprised that the IWAAC is extremely concerned. It has highlighted the problems that our waterways face as a result of the financial situation that I have outlined.
I now turn to clause 2—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Reading, North wish to intervene? I thought that as a member of IWAAC he might wish to comment on that organisation's document.

Mr. Durant: I was getting slightly anxious that the right hon. Gentleman has only reached clause 1.

Mr. Howell: We have plenty of time. We rarely get the opportunity to debate matters affecting the canal industry. The hon. Gentleman now has a double-up. He is greatly interested in the canals. I believe that he is a member of IWAAC. First, he tried to stop me talking about some of the problems affecting water users and he is now complaining about the time that the House is spending on the matter. That is an extraordinary way for the hon. Gentleman to show his devotion to the water and canal industries.
As the Minister said, clause 2 deals with the transfer of charges from industrial and commercial users to the domestic water users in so far as any of those charges represent the supply and use of water for fire-fighting purposes. The Minister has offered no justification for that extraordinary proposition. Commerce and industry are not excused the wages of firemen who have to fight fires. Why should they be excused the cost of providing the water with which the fires are to be fought? The logic of the proposal is beyond me, and I should like to know what it is. I believe that the Government are being subjected to enormous pressure from the sprinkler manufacturing industry. The Minister hinted at that. The effect of what the Minister is proposing will be to add at least 1 per cent. to water bills. That is the estimate that I have been given.

Dr. Keith Hampson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: It is no good the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) shaking his head. That estimate was given to me today by one of the regional water authorities. The cost to the domestic ratepayer will be at least 1 per cent.—

Mr. Durant: rose—

Mr. Howell: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get a three-timer, as we call it.

Mr. Durant: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which water authority he asked? That would be interesting to the House.

Mr. Howell: I may tell the hon. Gentleman in Committee, but not now.
What consultations took place on the extraordinary proposal that has been included in the Bill? Does the Minister have the support of the National Water Council and regional water authorities for the proposal? Many of us will take a lot of convincing that those responsible bodies have given their support to an element of switching of costs and burdens from industry to domestic water users. The explanatory memorandum says:


No increase in central Government manpower, or in local authority or water authority manpower, is anticipated.
How is it proposed to decide how much water is available to industry for its sprinkler systems and how that may be exempted from a general charge for supplying water for all the purposes for which a factory may require it? That will be almost impossible. It will require an army to inspect all the sprinkler systems throughout the country and to decide how many there are—how 200 sprinkler systems are to be exempted or how to separate the supply of water to 200 outlets for fire-fighting purposes from all the costs of supplying water for drinking, toilet purposes and industrial use.
I hope to examine this astonishing proposition in Committee, especially as for most of our old industries no maps are available, so that no judgments can be made unless each of the premises is individually inspected.
The most extraordinary thing about the proposition is that the cost of it, which is to be added to the domestic bill, is more than 1 per cent. and the cost to the domestic user of the potential dispute or national strike in the water industry is less than that. [Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members saying that that is total rot. I am thus encouraged to go into more detail about the figures, because the 7·9 per cent. offer—I shall be ruled out of order if I talk much about the figures, so I shall illustrate my point by talking about the 1 per cent. additional cost—would add 0·6 per cent. to the water rate. I am not suggesting that this should be so, but, if the offer to the union were doubled, the cost to the domestic water user would be equal to the cost of the provision in clause 2. That is the logic of the clause.
Although we shall not oppose the additional provision for the British Waterways Board, we hear many searching questions to ask about it. In Committee, unless we have a strong case—which we have not yet heard—to convince us otherwise, we shall oppose the switch of an increased burden to the domestic water user, as is proposed in clauses 2 and 3. We shall approach the Committee proceedings constructively, but with considerable foreboding.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new role and on the concise, lucid and attractive way in which he introduced the Bill. Unfortunately, those are not compliments that I can extend to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). He took 45 minutes to produce a puddle too small to support a goldfish. I wonder whether his contribution is one to which the House should have been subjected. I do not propose to deal with it in detail, largely because it is not a contribution should attract a reasoned response.
I do not intend to comment at length on the contents of the Bill. My object is to suggest that the Bill should contain one measure of law reform not now included. My suggestion is that the Bill is a convenient vehicle in which to introduce a long-desired piece of law reform. I am referring to the liability of the statutory water undertakers for damage caused to persons or property as a result of escaping water.
The House will appreciate that often water escapes from the plant and installations maintained by statutory water undertakers. There are various reasons for

that—mains and pipes burst, stopcocks prove defective and reservoirs leak. Substantial loss is often caused either to persons or to property. That loss takes many forms. In the crudest form, water escapes on to a highway and causes a road accident. On other occasions a burst main causes damage to adjoining property or pipes burst and water causes damage to farmers' crops. On further occasions water escapes on to business premises and damages plant and machinery. Those are instances of what frequently happens.
I imagine that hon. Members have sometimes asked who bears the cost of such damage. Who has to shoulder the financial consequences of that sort of escape? It may surprise some hon. Members to know that the statutory water undertakers ate liable to pay compensation to injured persons only if that person can prove that the statutory water undertaker was negligent. I should like to persuade the House to extend the principle of strict liability. We should make the statutory water undertakers liable for damage caused by the escape of water, provided that there is a connection between the escape and the damage. I want to remove the need to prove negligence and to establish the principle of strict liability.
There are a number of considerations in favour of such an approach. The first is the general one of equity and justice. We are dealing with the provision of a service which is for the benefit of the entire community. On occasions, as a result of a defect in that system, an individual suffers damage. We must ask who should bear the cost of that damage. Should it be society, for whose benefit the facilities are provided, or the individual, who is entirely free blame? I have no difficulty in answering that question by saying that the entire community, and thus the statutory water undertaker, should carry the cost.
A further consideration is that the present law makes an unattractive and wholly unacceptable distinction between the liability of the statutory water undertaker and that of the private individual. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will doubtless confirm that the statutory water undertaker is liable only if negligence can be proved. But that is not the case in relation to private individuals. Many hon. Members will know of the decision in the case of Rylands v Fletcher in the latter part of the nineteenth century. As a result of that decision, when an individual accumulates water on his land and it escapes, causing damage to the person or property of another, the individual who accumulates the water is liable for the loss, and it is not necessary to prove negligence. I do not see why there should be a distinction between a statutory water undertaker and a private individual.
There is a further consideration that I should like to put before the House. An individual suffering loss as the result of an escape of water may claim compensation if he can prove negligence. However, that right is often an illusion, because the proof of negligence is both expensive and difficult and it is frequently beyond the ability and resources of individuals.
For example, pipes may burst as a result of frost damage. A prudent water authority is under a duty to guard against foreseeable degrees of frost, though not against unforseeable degrees of frost. Therefore, there can be a complicated and tendentious argument about the sort and severity of frost that a water undertaker should be required to anticipate.
If water escapes because of a failure in an old pipe, questions arise about the lifespan of a pipe—another


complicated matter turning on expert evidence. If water escapes because of the failure to maintain the system, there are endless arguments about the precautions that a reasonably prudent water undertaker should take. Those are matters of complexity and difficulty and are often beyond the resources of private individuals.

Mr. Gary Waller: Statutory water undertakings have a responsibility to provide pure and wholesome water. Does my hon. Friend accept that a water authority that does not do that, but provides brown water, as happens in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson), should be responsible for any harm that comes about as a result? Does my hon. Friend agree that if, as is the case, there is a larger than approved amount of manganese or other metals, the water authority should be responsible for not providing pure and wholesome water, even though no negligence may be proved?

Mr. Hogg: Yes. If someone suffers damage, whether to his property or person, as a result of a defect in the public system, the statutory water undertaker should, as a general proposition, be liable to compensate him.
There is another consideration that I should like to place before the House, because it is significant. On many occasions, statutory water undertakers make ex gratia payments to those who suffer damage. Hon. Members may know that the National Water Council has given guidance to water authorities advocating the payment of compensation to the occupiers of domestic premises. I emphasise "domestic premises".
A number of conclusions are properly to be drawn from that fact. The first is that the practice of making ex gratia payments and the issuing of advice and guidance suggest that water authorities are unhappy about the limited liability that exists at present. Secondly, the right to compensation should not be discretionary. If it is right to receive compensation, that right should be enshrined in law. It should be a substantive right and not dependent on the discretion of any official at any time.
The guidance from the NWC that compensation should be payable to the occupiers of domestic premises has tended to exclude occupiers of other land. Although compensation is frequently paid ex gratia to occupiers of domestic premises, there is an increasing practice among water authorities to say to farmers or occupiers of business premises "We will not pay any compensation to you, because you are outside the scope of the guidance issued by the National Water Council".

Mr. George Cunningham: Can the hon. Gentleman add one factual point to what he is saying? At least at the beginning of the 1970s, it was the case that when a water authority wanted to make an ex gratia payment of that sort it had to have the approval of the Minister, who, in effect, gave the same sort of certificate that he gives to a local authority that wants to make an ex gratia payment. In effect, he called off the normal sanctions that would apply against unauthorised expenditure. Is the hon. Gentleman aware whether that ministerial approval is still required?

Mr. Hogg: I think that the answer is "No", but that is a matter on which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary

may feel able to comment. I do not think that the ministerial fiat is now necessary, but I do not say that with complete confidence.
I am aware of a number of cases, particularly in the farming community, in which substantial losses have occurred as a result of escaping water, but in which the water authorities concerned have refused to pay compensation. Correspondence on the subject has passed between the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and the Department of the Environment.
My arguments could be refined at considerable length, but I do not wish to follow the example of the right hon. Member for Small Heath. The House would not tolerate that, and would be right not to do so. My point is that we have an injustice which relates to the limited liability under which water undertakers operate.
I should like the House to take advantage of the Bill to extend the liability of statutory water undertakers so that they are liable for all damage caused by escaping water, irrespective of whether there has been negligence. I want to impose strict liability on the undertakers and to remove the need to prove negligence.
I hope to persuade hon. Members, those on my side and also those on the Opposition Benches, of the desirability of the measure. I should like particularly to persuade the Under-Secretary of State that this is an appropriate vehicle for carrying through what I believe is a small but none the less important piece of law reform.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I join the welcome extended to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in his new position. He will be pleased to know that I shall not pester him too much. I shall address most of my remarks to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.
I should like to take up initially the points made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). There is scope for looking into the problem. All hon. Members have probably come across the sort of problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred where individuals, businesses and agricultural concerns have suffered. Whether or not the Bill is a suitable vehicle for dealing with these problems I should not like to say. I am sure, however, that there is a need to look in this direction. I hope that the Government will consider the points that have been made.
If I am critical of the Bill my main criticism is of its deficiency and its paltriness. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that hon. Members were expecting considerable comment from the Government about water. In Wales, the issue of water and particularly its price to the domestic consumer is exceptionally contentious. I have remarked on previous occasions that water is inflammable in Wales. We are aware of the Government's intention to move ahead in doing away with the equalisation provisions for the next financial year. I had a letter only last week from the Department confirming its intentions. We fear that this intention will be carried out by the underhand method which, although legitimate, gives little attention to the changes taking place when carried out, as will be the case, by order. The people of Wales had a right to expect, in any legislation forthcoming in this parliamentary year, some alternative proposals if the provisions of equalisation were to be done away with.
The cost of water in Wales remains excessively high. The cost in terms of average equated rate poundage—this relates of course to unmeasured water supplies—was an average in 1980–81 of 25·28p in the pound in Wales compared with 15·6p in the pound in the North-West, 12·1p in Severn-Trent and an average for England and Wales of 18·18p in the pound. This shows the extent of the non-equalisation that still exists despite the Equalisation Act. If we lose the provisons of the Equalisation Act, we shall lose a further £3 to £4 million, which will work out at £3 or £4 per household in Wales. Even if we change from the average equated rate effect to the average household bill—one is aware of the discrepancy in rateable value between England and Wales—the average household bills will be £60·38 in Wales compared with £47·82 in the Thames area despite the fact that the average per capita income in Wales is 20 per cent. below the United Kingdom average and the average per capita income in the Thames area is 20 to 30 per cent. above.
That underlines the problems. These will only get worse when equalisation comes to an end. It is not unreasonable for us to have expected a provision in the Bill that would at least ameliorate or substitute the provisions that will come to an end if equalisation disappears later this year.
There has been a change over the past few years in expenditure by the authorities at constant money value. In Wales, there has been a decrease, despite the additional resources of equalisation, of the money available to provide water services from £185 million in 1975–76 to £155 million in 1979–80. Over the same period, the money for the North-West was increased from £286 million to £306 million. I have no doubt that the increase was necessary, given the pattern of collapse of sewers in the North-West. The increase in the Southern area was from £150 million to £165·2 million at constant prices. We have seen a decrease in the resources despite equalisation. There have been the problems, particularly in South Wales, of sewer collapse in the industrial areas, while in many areas of rural Wales there is a need to replace inadequate domestic pipes.
This raises what the Government intend to do. It is known that when the equalisation Bill came forward in the House, the Conservative Party had some doubts about it. I am glad to see present in the Chamber the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), the only other Welsh Member attending the debate. The hon. Gentleman gave a mixed welcome to the Bill on its Second Reading on 24 January 1977. The hon. Gentleman said:
We in Wales transfer much of our water at cost to the Severn-Trent and North-West areas. I am bound to say in passing that much of the discontent in Wales arose following comparisons between the low water rates charged in those areas and the top rates charged in Wales. The Government could have considered a scheme of equalisation limited to Wales and those two areas of supply only, or they might have encouraged a scheme of inter-authority sales on a fully commercial basis rather than the simple cost basis on which water is supplied at present"—[Official Report, 24 January 1977, Vol. 924, c. 1088–9.]
Those were interesting ideas put forward by the hon. Member for Conway. I am surprised that those ideas have not been developed as an alternative to equalisation if the Government are hell-bent on doing away with equalisation. The most logical step would probably be to have a uniform overall charging system. The previous

Government were not able to move towards such a system. It is, however, an alternative that the Government might at least have been considering at this time.
On the Third Reading of the Bill on 16 March 1977, the hon. Member for Conway said:
My first criticism of the Bill is that it does not live up to its title.
—that title being "Water Charges Equalisation":
It does not fully equalise water charges as the title suggests. It equalises them only partly."—[Official Report, 16 March 1977, Vol. 928, c. 572.]
It might, therefore, seem reasonable to expect proposals from the Welsh Office in the Bill as a move towards what the hon. Gentleman advocated on the Third Reading of the Bill. They do not appear in the Bill now before the House. I would have thought that in Committee and on Report, hon. Members representing Wales and other areas such as the Anglian area—affected by equalisation—would like to see an alternative system brought forward. I would be interested to hear the Minister say what is to be the substitute. Is there the probability of one area charging more than cost for the transfer of water?
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales and also the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, with his new responsibilities, will be aware that the Welsh water authority has received legal advice which says that by agreement under section 12 of schedule 4 to the 1973 Act it can lawfully make a charge on recipient authorities for bulk supply which exceeds the cost of providing that supply. Given that we are losing equalisation, Ministers are presumably happy that the Welsh water authority will move ahead to make a charge along those lines to recoup the money that it is losing. This factor was accepted by the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) on 17 December 1979. He said:
either we accept something along the lines of the Act"—
that is the equalisation Act—
and this order"—
that is the order for equalisation—
or we deliberately encourage authorities with a surplus of water to sell it to the highest bidder."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979, Vol. 976, c. 237–8.]
It is reasonable for the House to expect the Government to make their view clear on what is to happen when equalisation comes to an end. The Bill is an excellent opportunity for putting into a legislative framework any steps that need to be taken. It is probably the only opportunity to do so before equalisation comes to an end. The Government should hold equalisation for another year until they have worked out their proposals, or they should make provision in the Bill.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the intention of the equalisation Act was to bring charges closer to an average. I am sure that he is also aware that the effect of the continuance of the Act and the issue of further orders under the Act is to make some charges that are higher than the average even further from the average and to make some charges that are lower than average even lower. In other words, there has been not an equalisation effect but a de-equalisation effect. That could be expected with the continuation of the Act. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot mean what he says when he talks about selling water to the highest bidder. Water supplies from Wales to those who require the supply are fixed.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is his party's philosophy that commodities should be sold


by those who have them to those who need them. By and large, the argument advanced from the Opposition Benches is that commodities such as water should be sold at a cost that reflects the service rather than the commercial supply. One of those two arguments must be valid. If it is argued that we should treat water as a service, there is an overwhelming argument that there should be a standard price throughout the areas covered by the Bill. If the argument is that it is not a service and that we are looking for initiative from local water authorities, presumably authorities should be rewarded for the initiative that they take and for the water that they supply to those who need it.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. On 16 March 1977 he argued strongly that we needed greater equalisation. I accept what he says. There are some ways in which the Act does not necessarily lead to the equalisation that we all seek. However, it leads to partial equalisation. If it is not working adequately, let us amend it so that it provides the equalisation for which we are looking. Surely we should not seek to sweep it away altogether. It is certain that if that happens Wales will lose about £3 to £4 million. That cannot be denied. I hope that we shall witness some response. If the Government do not respond, there will be hell to pay when the bills come through in Wales next May.
There are two more items that I wish to see in the Bill. The first relates to rebates on water charges. The system of basing water charges on rateable value is even odder than the system of local rates themselves. There are many individuals living by themselves, such as widows, who face the same water rates as those who live next door in a similar house in which there are three or four incomes. A widow may be eligible for a rebate on her domestic rates but she will not be entitled to a rebate on the water rates. This would have been an appropriate opportunity to empower water authorities to move in that direction if they saw fit. It is something that they should see fit to do.
Secondly, I draw to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—I presume that he will be replying—the report of the Welsh Consumer Council on the policy fact sheet on the water industry that was issued recently. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the details in the report. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response to the suggestion that there should be a public utility stamp available from post offices that covers water and other utilities. That is a helpful suggestion.
The report states that there are inadequate financial resources available in Wales to enable customers to be provided with the water services that they need and to avoid the cut-offs each summer that those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency suffer, as well as my constituents, or the low water pressure that affects many parts of Wales. There are several issues in the report that, if taken up in Committee or on Report, would lead to an improvement of the Bill. Even if it is not appropriate tonight to respond in detail, I hope that the Minister will bear these issues in mind in moving towards consideration of the Bill in Committee.
I turn to land drainage, which could reasonably be associated with the Bill. There are many problems that need to be tackled within a legislative framework. The

Gwynedd county council made certain suggestions about that in the context of a Private Member's Bill. I am sure that they could be built into this Bill.
There is one drafting point that I wish to put on the record. I find the wording in clause 5(2) very odd indeed. It states:
Section 1 of this Act extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland but otherwise this Act extends to England and Wales only.
That may be the normal wording—I do not know—but it appears to imply that, other than section 1, it extends to England and Wales. Perhaps before Committee stage the Minister will examine that wording.

Mr. Tony Durant: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State to his new appointment. It would be wrong and churlish of me not to mention his predecessor in relation to inland waterways—a matter in which I take an active interest. He was especially enthusiastic about that subject. I hope that the new Minister will continue his predecessor's excellent work.
I welcome the Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled that matters left out of the Bill may be discussed. I am tempted to make a long speech about weather control and rain making because they are relevant to water supply. Although they are matters of scientific interest in Britain, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) appointed me to the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. I shall resist the temptation to do so in case I upset him.
I wish to deal mainly with the contribution of the British Waterways Board. The inland waterways are an important national asset. Currently there are more boats on the inland waterways than there were at the height of the canal madness in the last century. They are not freight boats of course, but more boats pass along our waterways. It is a larger industry than is often realised. The British Waterways Board is principally involved in a leisure industry, but it deals also with freight, to which I shall turn later.
The Government must recognise the importance of drainage and safety. A number of waterways are in a bad condition and an element of safety is involved. If we do not take care, a bank may burst, especially in bad weather, which could cause tremendous damage, not only to farms and fields but to individual houses. I hope that the Government will work with the British Waterways Board on that aspect.
The British Waterways Board has done a remarkable job in relation to freight, and it deserves credit for it. The annual report for 1979 shows that its freight division contributed more than £1,467,800 towards the general revenue of the board. That is £100,000 more than in the previous year. Therefore, it is a growing element rather than a dying element. That is important. In page 6 of the report the board makes an important statement:
The Board welcomed the EEC proposal for a Directive on Statistics of Inland Waterway Goods Transport and answered a request from the Government for assistance and advice. The Board have for some years pressed for inland waterway freight statistics to include all the navigable waterways of the United Kingdom so that the total contribution to transport made by those waterways would be apparent.
That is important. The Government made a mistake in taking into account only the mileage involved in the British Waterways Board, and then saying that it was not involved in the EEC directive.
The Inland Waterways Association has produced an interesting report which I urge the Minister to read. It takes account of the whole subject of freight, not only on waters controlled by the British Waterways Board, but on all the other rivers, estuaries and canals. It shows that the amount of mileage and freight involved is considerable and could come under the EEC directive if the total is taken into account rather than only that relating to the British Waterways Board. The IWA report contains valuable statistics and information. It is a highly sophisticated document. I suggest that the Minister studies it.
I also urge him to read IWAAC's report on the leisure side of the industry. It has made an interesting report on the number of people involved. The number operating the waterways is small, but subsidiary industries are involved in boat building, hiring boats, waterways facilities, cafes, supermarkets and so on, which all assist the general service. The number of people involved is much larger than one at first realises. The report goes into the matter in some depth. The figures are the best that it can obtain.
In passing, I urge the Minister, bringing a new mind to the matter, to consider not abolishing IWAAC but instead perhaps abolishing the other body. IWAAC does a useful job.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath suggested that the waterways should be looked after by the water industry in general—in other words, the water authorities. I do not agree one bit. I have experience on the Thames. We have a proposition from the Thames water authority to do away with the Thames Conservancy. If any organisation ran a waterway well, it was the Thames Conservancy. There has been a general deterioration in the Thames since the Thames water authority took over. Thames Conservancy had a high standard. People from other countries came to study its methods. It is a tragedy to make such a proposal. There is a fear that, if the functions are taken over by the water authorities, their only interest will be the water and not the navigation. That is the danger. Those who use the waterways are nervous about the proposal. I applaud the Government for keeping the British Waterways Board, which has done a reasonable job with limited resources.
I also fear that the charges that the Thames water authority will make to the commercial side of the leisure industry on the Thames will have a detrimental effect. It has increased charges enormously for licensing boats, which is in itself causing considerable concern. I shall be holding a meeting on that subject in the House. Operators are afraid that in the present financial climate they may have to stop operating because of the high charges that the water authority intends to impose on hire craft. The industry's experience with the water authorities is not good. There is therefore hesitation.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath misled the House by saying that the fire appliance provision would cause only a 1 per cent. increase. Although he did not say so, I presume that he is talking of the North-West area, which is probably the only area that previously made the charge. Most water authorities do not. I hope that the Minister will make the position clear.
We all agree that there is an essential need for repair of the waterways system. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman pretending to be holier than thou. He lost battles with the Treasury. His greatest victory was the South Yorkshire navigation, for which I give him full credit. However, the rest of the money that he obtained

was only emergency money in a rolling programme. Money was said to be committed, but it was never paid over.
The board has said sincerely that, if it was given the whole tranche of what the Frankel report recommended, plus, it could not cope with it. It wants a rolling programme. I hope that the Government will opt for a rolling programme of repair and aid so that there can be consistency.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the matter, although I do not agree with him. Faced with the Frankel report, the fact that the canals system was in a state of decay and the estimate that it would take 12 years to bring it up to date, we first got what he describes as emergency money, which was used principally for two major projects.
We also obtained an additional sum of £5 million a year for the first two years for the rolling programme about which the hon. Gentleman is now talking. In my response to the Select Committee I made clear that we accepted the full commitment of the whole Frankel programme and that the sum of £5 million would continue until the whole programme had been dealt with. That amount of money has now been reduced, and it is the failure to comply with that commitment—which I gave under considerable pressure—about which I am now complaining.

Mr. Durant: We can continue to argue about that, but I do not wish to delay the House.
I return to my point that I hope the Government will consider a rolling programme. However, there is a danger that if we push too far, the skills and the necessary background and capital equipment will not be available for the work on the scale that we should all like. I should like an enormous programme, but I do not think that the British Waterways Board could cope with it. This measure goes some way towards helping the current situation. An immediate amount of £5 million is provided and the authority can go further than that in the borrowing requirement. That is helpful to the British Waterways Board.
I shall support the Bill. I have my reservations, but it is easy to talk when one is not a Minister. In view of the economic situation, the Minister has done well in this Bill.

Mr. Barry Henderson: In the light of what has been said and about whether the water authorities or the British Waterways Board should be in charge of some undertakings, it is a curiosity that in Scotland there are two navigable canals—the Crinan canal and the Caledonian canal. I suspect the the British Waterways Board attracts a greater profit from the Monkton canal, the Union canal and the Forth and Clyde canal, all of which are closed to navigation but are profitable in the supply of water.
I return to the point that was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). He spoke with considerable eloquence and knowledge about the general case for improving the concept of justice and equity surrounding some of the law on water in regard to farmers and others. The law on water in Scotland is different from that which applies in England, not least in that in Scotland the regional councils are the water authorities.
Last year the Government introduced a useful consolidation measure, the Water (Scotland) Act, which


is the basis of the Scottish law on water. Having drawn attention to those differences in the law between Scotland and England, I think that the principle about which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham spoke, with regard to looking for an element of justice for the individual in dealing with major public authorities, requires more attention than it has received in the Bill. I hope that, even if it is not practical in the long run to introduce such an element into the Bill, it will be taken on board by the Government for early action.
In that connection, I mention two matters. Water authorities do not enter into a deed of servitude with owners, which means that the existence of a water pipeline is not recorded in the register of sasines, and subsequent owners may be unaware that there is a pipe running through their land.
That circumstance raises the second question, to which reference has already been made. If damage occurs as the result of a water main being burst by a farmer, whose fault is it? If he did not know that it was there, is it his fault, or is it the fault of the water authority? Immediately, we have the difficult question of whose responsibility it is in circumstances of that kind. Added to that is the fact that there is no ruling that water authorities are liable for damage caused by a burst water main.
It is often suggested that it would be helpful if a court decision were made in an appropriate case to show that an obligation existed, but the legislation should make clear that the water authorities have an obligation. The law should lay down clearly on what basis someone who has suffered damage may seek to have it rectified.
When this matter has been brought to their attention by organisations such as the National Farmers Union successive Governments have urged the NFU to seek to reach agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. This is a somewhat naive view for Governments to take, because the NFU has nothing to give away and COSLA, as representing the water authorities, has everything to give away and nothing to gain.
With the present state of law there is absolutely no reason why COSLA should contribute to a negotiated agreement for improving this kind of environment. We shall not get a better and fairer balance between the citizen and the water authority unless the Government undertake the responsibility of setting down a proper framework within which to deal with these matters.
The farmers would go further than I have in pressing the Minister this evening. Water authorities do not pay wayleaves. I understand that in England the broad principles are the same—that, while wayleaves need not be paid, equally they may be paid, and that some water authorities in England pay wayleaves, at least in some circumstances. I do not know whether anyone will make unfortunate comments about Scots, but no Scottish water authority has ever paid for a wayleave.
This becomes very difficult for farmers to understand when at the moment there is intense activity in Scotland in setting up oil and gas pipelines and the like. The farmers have had extremely satisfactory relationships with private enterprise undertakings in making arrangements for having pipelines across their land, compensation for damage, the establishment of deeds of servitude, and the whole paraphernalia of matters that arise when agricultural communities are dealing with oil companies.
The farmers see this in marked contrast to their dealings with water authorities. In a major petrochemical development in Moss Morran, in Fife, there is a water pipeline to go to that complex as well as the gas pipeline, for no other purpose than to serve that complex. It is not in order to make provision for the general domestic water consumer or anyone else; it is in order only to provide for that complex, and there will be no wayleave payments as there are with the comparable pipelines.
If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary cannot encourage us to hope that a measure will be included in the Bill to improve the legal environment and to ensure fair terms for the agricultural community, I hope that the Government will at least study this issue and consider action.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I shall speak about the effect of the Bill on public service manpower. I shall also express some scepticism and cynicism about the fact that no increase is expected in Government, local authority or water authority manpower.
Since the 1973 Act, which set up regional water authorities, the record of those authorities has been one of considerable extravagance. I shall seek to demonstrate that such extravagance is likely to continue and that therefore the sentiments expressed by clause 6 are unlikely to have any effect. The 1973 Act rationalised about 1,600 bodies and created regional water authorities. They may not be mammoths or dinosaurs, but they have certainly proved to be sharks. In 1980–81 their turnover amounted to £1·7 billion, which is a massive sum. The water authorities are big business. It is unfortunate that they have not always acted in a businesslike way. They have demonstrated that bigger is certainly not best.
It is unfortunate that water authorities are not more accountable to the public. The public would have enjoyed a better and cheaper service if they had been. But it is impossible to secure membership of a regional water authority by direct election. About half of the members are appointed by local authorities and the balance by Whitehall. However, they are far too remote. Regional water authorities are too big and have no real identity.
Regional water authorities should be divided into much smaller units. For example, my regional water authority—Severn-Trent—could be divided into at least two parts. One could represent the basin of the Severn and the other that of the Trent. As regional water authorities are so large, they act in an extremely autocratic fashion. They are not cost effective. For example, I understand that one authority spent £1,000 on the provision of a personalised number plate. I cannot think of a better illustration of extravagance.
Manpower has increased in a way that local authorities would not countenance. The percentage increases in wages and salaries have far outstripped local government awards. It is no wonder that bills from the regional water authorities increase by leaps and bounds.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do the former chairman of the North-West water authority, who has unfortunately passed on, a disservice. He paid for a personal number plate for his car. He had the number plate transferred from a private car to the car that he used as chairman. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that no charge was made on public


funds, although his action may not have been wise. Most of us respected him, despite the fact that he supported the Conservative Party rather than our party. It is only fair to his memory that I should correct the hon. Gentleman's statement.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I accept what he says and I withdraw any aspersions that I may have made about that gentleman.
The water rate now represents a considerable part of the average family's budget. It has been rightly said that the system of rating is grossly unfair. But, worse still, rate rebates are not applicable to the water rate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider that anomaly and correct it.
A considerable measure of empire building has taken place in regional water authorities. Many authorities are now involved in direct billing and send out their own separate demands. I cannot understand how such actions can be justified as money-saving measures.
May I quote from a written answer that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) received? This refers to non-manual staff costs expressed as a percentage of revenue expenditure. For my regional water authority, in 1974–75 that percentage amounted to 10·1 per cent. In 1975–76 it had increased to 12 per cent. In 1976–77, it had gone up to 13·1 per cent. That is a most unhelpful and expensive progression.
We have already heard that in some areas about 50 per cent. of water is not being accounted for. That represents appalling waste, but that wastage is not all due to poor administration; a great deal must be due to the poor state of engineering—the poor state of the mains and sewers.
Perhaps one method of getting better value for our money would be by increasing privatisation. I believe that there are about 30 private companies currently employing just under 9,000 people. Those 9,000 people are responsible for supplying water to about 25 per cent. of the population. To supply the balance, the authorities need about 64,000. There are no prizes for guessing which system is the most cost effective. Privatisation would be cheaper and more efficient.
For example, in my belief, the regional water authorities use far too much direct labour, which is not subject to the same scrutiny that private enterprise must face and is frequently wasteful. I should like to quote from a letter from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, dated 9 January 1981, addressed to the district auditor at Sheffield, referring to
North East Derbyshire District Council: Sewer Renewal".
The addresses and the roads are quoted. The relevant extract is:
I understand that competitive tenders were invited for this work and that a private contractor submitted the lowest tender. The District Council, however, decided to award the contract to its own public works department, who had submitted a higher tender price.
There is no justification for that action. That is a direct indictment of the direct labour operation.
The present Government seek to reduce public expenditure. They need look no further than some of the regional water authorities. It can be argued with justification that they should be cut down to a more manageable size, and that we should introduce far more privatisation.

Mr. John Farr: I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but it does not go particularly far in a number of important areas. I also take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to his new duties on the Front Bench, which I am sure he will distinguish in his own special way.
Before the debate began, I obtained the latest annual report of the British Waterways Board. It will interest the House to consider some of the notable trends contained in it upon which hinges the reason why the Government are asking the House to authorise more money for the British Waterways Board.
For a long time I have been in correspondence with Ministers in Governments of both parties and also with the chairman of the British Waterways Board, trying to get them to dispose of what I regard as unwanted assets. In these days, when the canal system is not as thriving and active as originally intended, there must be a good deal of inadequate development of some of the valuable properties which are in the possession of the board. It seems sensible to me—but, as I say, not to various Ministers or to the chairman of the British Waterways Board—that under-used assets in the shape of land and buildings should be sold when there are anxious buyers who will put them to better use and pay the taxpayers a good price. That should be the policy of the board.
I therefore seized the opportunity to discover from the board's annual report for 1979 what its activities had been recently in disposing of land and property. The report showed that, at 31 December 1979, the board had net assets totalling £20,031,000, of which freehold land and buildings accounted for £13,258,000. But page 50 said that the figures were based on the valuation date of 1 January 1969—11 years ago. It is safe to say that what was worth £13 million on 1 January 1969 must have been worth £25 million or £30 million on 31 December 1979.
What intrigued me about this report—this should be discussed in Committee—is that, despite the fact that the board is in a semi-moribund state, through no fault of its own, it is in the process of acquiring more land and buildings. At the end of 1979 it had increased its holding in freehold land and buildings by nearly £1 million. Page 27 shows that there were some small purchases in 1979 and a number of small land disposals, but the purchases were double the disposals.
Therefore, the board has perhaps £30 million worth of land and buildings, many of which, through no fault of the board's, are not serving the purpose for which they were originally designed. Many anxious purchasers would like to buy them, thus relieving the taxpayers of the £15 million or £20 million which they must pay annually to keep the board going.
I urge the Minister to consider this situation and say that under-used buildings should be sold. There is a ready market for them and they could then be put to full commercial use, and the money could be used to reduce the sum for which the board has now come to the House.
The 1979 report is not altogether a happy one. Page 33 and statement F4 on page 70 show that total staff increased in those 12 months from 3,147 to 3,239. Yet, despite that increase in staff, in the same 12 months the freight tonnage carried on the board' a commercial waterways decreased. The growing number of staff, the falling freight tonnage


and the blank refusal by the chairman to dispose of any land or property but steadily to acquire more land and property warrant close examination in Committee.

Mr. Hardy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the period in question the British Waterways Board commenced the Sheffield and South Yorkshire navigation improvement—a project of considerable significance? Does he agree that, although that is not massive in terms of motorway expenditure, it presents the board with a substantial challenge which requires the purchase of a little land for the widening scheme and a modest addition in staff?

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for that intervention. I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's view.
It is a pity that the present attitude exists at board headquarters. Hon. Members should be worried about it. I do not blame the members of the board. Many of them are old friends from the House of Commons. We know them to be men of integrity and ability. They are probably doing their best, but there is considerable room for improvement.

Mr. Durant: I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely and I agree that the disposal of land needs examination, but I am uneasy about his freight figures. At one point in the report the figures indicate an increase in return from that division of £100,000. Either the figures are different in various parts of the report or my hon. Friend and I misundertand each other. I am not convinced that my hon. Friend is right about the fall in freight tonnage.

Mr. Farr: That lengthy intervention gave me the opportunity to look at the reference on page 5 of the report. Paragraph 32 states:
The tonnage carried on the Commercial Waterways amounted to 5,170,645 tonnes compared with 5,361,121 tonnes for 1978.
I understand that to indicate a decline of about 200,000 tonnes, which is what I said.
The House should examine the parlous financial situation of the British Waterways Board. The Minister made an able speech about the need to provide the board with the money for which it asks. However, as can be seen in one of the tables, its situation is parlous. In 1979, out of a total expenditure of £27 million, no less than £21½ million—or 77 per cent.—was financed by grant. Only 16 per cent., or £4 million, was generated by commercial activities—a worrying figure. Leisure activities generated 6 per cent., making a total of 100 per cent. for the year.
That is not a happy story. I hope for the prosperity of the British Waterways Board and have in particular an interest in our invaluable and much admired canal system. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) I have the pleasure of having the Grand Union canal, probably Britain's premier canal, running through my constituency. My hon. Friend is also interested in the maintenance and adequate use of our canals for leisure.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House once again the topic of disposal of unwanted property by the British Waterways Board. Only this morning I received a letter from a company in my constituency, Foxton Boat Services. That company of canal boat operators has lived with the British Waterways Board quite successfully and

harmoniously for a number of years. It is anxious to increase and develop its activities, but it has found that the British Waterways Board has not always helped. The letter written by one of its directors, states:
I feel that as British Waterways Board have such a great weight of maintenance responsibilities this could, in fact, be overcome by the sale of privately tenanted properties, but as I understand it, if British Waterways Board shows a profit during any one year then it is payable to the Government in lieu of grants made available and which in turn means that British Waterways Board are making little or no headway in the improvements necessary to ensure themselves of becoming a viable institution.
The letter goes on to say—I hope that my hon. Friend is listening to this—
If the Government were to call a halt on the return of their grants then I think with the sale of redundant properties in general British Waterways Board would be able to place themselves in a strong financial situation. Enough, in fact, to carry out the backlog of repairs and general maintenance on the waterways and, with good management, to place themselves in a healthy position for the future. I think it would then be fair for British Waterways Board to charge a rental for the facilities enjoyed by those who purchase the canalside properties which in turn will help with future maintenance costs and lessen the burden on Government funds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) described with great clarity some of the difficulties in Scotland, particularly, the worries there in relation to flooding. I wish to make a criticism of the Bill as being inadequate inasmuch as it does not really safeguard or improve the situation in which a water main bursts and causes damage in England and Wales. At present, if a water main bursts and causes damage, the water undertakers are under no obligation to pay compensation unless negligence can be shown. In the case of buried works such as water mains to which there is no ready access, it is extremely difficult to show negligence. Thus, those whose land is crossed by water mains or sewers, installed with the backing of compulsory powers, may receive no compensation for the substantial damage which can be inflicted by high pressure water from a large main. At the time of the previous legislation, this was not a real problem, but it has come to the forefront in recent years with the continued advent of new housing estates and new rights of access for the installation of water mains.
I hope that it will not be beyond the capacity of the Government to find some way by which fair compensation can be obtained by owners and users of land whose interests may be substantially damaged by a burst water main. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows without my telling him that the National Water Council and, indeed, certain prominent spokesmen in his own Department are understood to be in sympathy with this view. I therefore hope that, sooner or later, perhaps in Committee, an amending clause will be introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby mentioned the regional water authorities. Coming from a neighbouring constituency, I can only record my full agreement with all that he has said about the poor reputation with the public currently enjoyed by those authorities. It has been caused by soaring expenditure and soaring water charges. There has been a failure in public relations.
What my constituents do not know, and what they ought to know, is that every regional water authority is composed of a majority of elected members. In theory, if the elected members are upset about something, they only have to act together in a purposeful manner and they can dictate and control the purse strings entirely. Yet so often one finds that being the area representative on the RWA


is rather a chore. It is not a job of much interest. It is something which a not very active councillor is delegated to do, and when the RWA meets its members show no cohesion.
The general intention of making elected members the majority on the RWAs is a good one, but those elected members, who can entirely dictate expenditure, are not making proper use of their position of great responsibility. I am not sure what the House can do about it, but it is something that it should consider.

Mr. Pawsey: Perhaps elected members are not able to make their weight felt because they come from so many differing local authorities and represent three differing political parties, four if one includes the ratepayers. Because of that splintering action, it may mean that they are not able to coalesce and to take on the authority as they should. Would not a better answer be the introduction of a greater degree of responsibility to an electorate?

Mr. Farr: I was about to sit down, but my hon. Friend has touched on an important and cogent note. The House could spend hours discussing the attitude and lack of interest of local councillors in relation to these appointments. I personally think that it is one of the most important appointments that councillors can obtain. But somehow or other we must persuade them to have the enthusiasm that is shown by the crowded Benches on both sides of the House.

Mr. Ted Graham: I echo the words of Conservative and Labour Members, and warmly welcome the Minister to his first chore as Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Labour Members very much hope that he will bring some fresh thinking to a Department that is sorely in need of it.
The Minister disappointed us with his contribution. It was far too bland. It failed to deal adequately with the provisions which the House and the people were led to believe were in the Ministry's files when it got the authority to bring the Bill forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) introduced a number of cogent reasons why the Bill was a disappointment, and it is no good Conservative Members complaining that he spent too much time on that topic. Every Conservative Member who has spoken has added to the catalogue of provisions that they would like to have seen in the Bill. In a Second Reading debate it is perfectly proper not only to comment on and criticise that which is in the Bill, but to comment on things that we would like to have seen in it.
Let us consider some of the points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) complained not about the contents of the Bill but about the absence of a provision that he considered ought, even at this late stage, to be considered by the Minister. I see a great deal of merit and equity in what the hon. Gentleman said. His proposal was supported by two other Conservative Members. That is another justification for our disappointment that the Bill has been brought forward so hastily and has not been given sufficient thought. The Government have missed a great opportunity to deal with many issues that ought to have been dealt with in such a Bill.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) brought the voice of Wales to the debate. He described the

Bill as deficient and paltry, and the Opposition do not disagree with that description. The hon. Gentleman said that the whole of Wales would feel let down because promises given to him and his colleagues and to Wales that there would be measures to deal with the inequity of certain aspects of the Equalisation Act had not been included in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman added to the list of topics that could have been dealt with, but have been excluded.
The Minister was frank enough to admit that the measure was almost a miscellaneous provisions Bill. It deals with three disparate aspects, cobbled together into a Bill, and we see no reason why more matters could not have been included.
We recognise the experience and ability of the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) in these matters. In preparing for the debate I read the Frankel report and I appreciated its wisdom. Not too much has been made of the importance of that report, though references to it have been made.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Reading, North that in order to give a boost to the morale of the industry we need to make clear that we shall deal with the years of neglect and delay and, not least, the decay brought about by the passage of time. The Frankel report argued that there should be a commitment that ought to be met unless there were overriding reasons against doing so. It referred to a figure of £36 million in 1975 and it is estimated that that figure ought now to be about £80 million.
Is the Minister aware of any thinking—I do not want to pin him down to a definite plan—about the possibility of producing the sort of rolling programme that the hon. Member for Reading, North said would be of great benefit? Such action would be wise and would be a continuation of the picture that emerged in the latter period of the Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) made some pertinent points about waste and inefficiency. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) underwrote those comments and no Opposition Member has any brief for inefficiency or waste. I assume that the hon. Member for Rugby was not making a party point, because the authority that he used as an illustration is not over-endowed with Labour members. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's strictures will hit home to the local authority members and those appointed by the Department. When a new Government takes office, there is a turnover of members of such bodies, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, and soon there will be no excuse for inefficiency or waste in that water authority.
The hon. Member for Harborough said that the Bill did not go far enough. The Opposition are fully behind not only the need for the British Waterways Board but also the need to give it adequate funding. One of the prime functions of the Board is to maintain the navigability and safety of the whole network. Against the background that this was accepted as a national responsibility, the Frankel report was commissioned and accepted by the previous Government, and embraced by present Ministers when in opposition. I should like the Minister to say whether there is a time scale and whether the Department has in mind sums that will be made available on a regular basis to deal with the range of matters that Frankel said should be tackled.
There is the regular and systematic inspection of the whole network. Will the Minister say whether there is a regular monitoring of the situation not merely to deal with tragedies or disasters but to ensure that the whole network is examined? There is a range of other responsibilities, including repair and maintenance of locks and aquaducts.
Frankel produced compelling arguments for greater commercial use of waterways. When the system was created 200 years ago, it was used primarily for commercial and freight purposes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has remarked, the canal system is now rightly used for leisure purposes by millions. There is a need to pay special attention to improving the use of the canal system. Frankel said that it was possible to multiply the use of the system commercially three times. One has to consider the appalling damage caused to the environment and the roads by the increasing weight of lorries and juggernauts, often resulting in enormous costs to be borne by the taxpayer. I should like the Minister to say whether the Department is considering any plans to increase the commercial use of the canals not only for their own sake but to take traffic off the roads.
The British Waterways Board has insufficient revenue to meet the whole of its costs. The deficit grant is running at the rate of 60 per cent. We want the Minister to come clean. The hon. Gentleman should not delude either the British Waterways Board or the House into believing that the Government are being generous to the board. One of the first acts of the Government, as an indication of their intention to reduce public expenditure, was to take £2 million off the grant in 1980. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has stated, the grant was £21 million in 1979. In 1981, it is £27 million. The grant of £21 million, in real terms, should have become a grant of £32 million. There has, therefore, been a reduction of £5 million in the amount that was required in 1981 merely to stand still and fulfil the same purposes. The inflation for which the Government are at least, in part, responsible, is eating away at the money made available. This is a backhanded way of helping the British Waterways Board.
The Minister should tell us whether he acknowledges that the Government are giving to the board with one hand and taking with the other. We want to know whether the revenue consequences of increasing the borrowing possibilities and the interest charge implications, for which the Government have a great deal of responsibility, are recognised by the Government. Additional moneys are being made available to enable required work to be undertaken, and the fact that those moneys are being used means that there is a greater charge on the revenue of the board.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath spoke about fire-fighting charges. The Minister argues that the raison d'etre for the change that is set out in clause 2 is related almost entirely to public safety. He argues that there is less public safety now because charges are made and, ipso facto, there will be more public safety when charges are dropped. I should not like to feel that there is any private undertaking of a business or commercial character that is inhibited from making adequate safety provisions for the public on the ground that it may have to face the charges that are now being levied throughout the country. The Opposition want to see every commercial

undertaking providing adequate public safety. We subscribe to the principle that is enshrined in the 1973 Act—namely, that users should pay a fair charge for water.
We can see a much more sinister reason than the Minister gave for the inclusion of clause 2. The North-West area authority—I realise that this is not typical—received an income last year of £600,000 from its charges for the provision of water for private sprinklers and the like. In future it will no longer receive that money. Industry is being derated. This is derating by sleight of hand and by the door. Industry is now paying £600,000 in the North-West for a service and next year it will not pay that sum. In other words, it is being relieved of the cost. Who will pay the £600,000 in the North-West? It will be paid not by the Exchequer, not by industry but primarily by the domestic ratepayer. The cost will not be borne by the authority.
The charges made by the Thames water authority are entirely at the discretion of the authority. I am told that last year it received an income of £100,000. However, I am told that before the Bill loomed on the horizon the authority had in its budget plans the raising of £1¼ million. That money is not now to be raised. The authority's budgeting will be knocked cockeyed. Where will the money come from? Adjustments will have to be made. Who will pay in the end? Again, domestic ratepayers will have to bear the burden. That is grossly unfair.
Under the guise of making factories more secure and increasing public safety, private industry is being relieved of the need to pay moneys hitherto charged to it.

Dr. Hampson: indicated dissent—

Mr. Graham: I note that the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department, shakes his head. He will have the opportunity in Committee—convention dictates otherwise now—to contradict my argument that a charge that is now being made will in future not be made and that the costs of the service will have to be borne by others. I contend that primarily the "others" will be domestic ratepayers.
A point was made about the net effect on the domestic ratepayer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath estimated that at an additional 1 per cent. The Department has provided me with a document which indicates that the abolition of the £600,000 will add ½ per cent. to the water bill of domestic consumers in the North-West. That figure varies throughout the country. One criticism is that there has never been a uniform basis. We shall want to question the Minister closely in Committee about the justification for relieving industry of that sum of money, and especially about the consequences for the domestic consumer.
One provision in the Bill is that there will no longer be a need for separate supply pipes. The Minister referred quite fairly to existing legislation. But he then made reference to the need for change. Last year there were cogent reasons for separate pipes in terms of water conservation, responsibility, the need better to control the use of water and the tragic problems that might occur if there were a change in the volume of water between one house and another because there were not separate pipes. What has happened to those cogent reasons which he now tells us are to be dropped, by virtue of the increase in the sale of council houses and the need to consider closely the break up of council estates and blocks of flats?
There are two glaring omissions. The Minister, in what was billed as a major speech, said that there were 10 points in a programme for action. He led us to believe that the Bill would include many aspects that would be welcomed by the British people. Let us consider two of them. There is the question of the sewer network. What about the costs to the country and eventually to the domestic ratepayer—the owner-occupier—of the enormous task of renewing the declining sewer network. I know that the Minister is aware of that problem. Could not some attempt to deal with that problem be included in the Bill? I know that in parts of Edmonton and Enfield many owner-occupiers are worried about the eventual cost to them of replacing the sewers.
There are householders who have access to cesspools, but who do not have direct access to a water supply for their domestic arrangements. About 1 million people are currently using cesspools. When will the Government introduce legislation to deal with the consequences of the Daymond judgment to the effect that there is no obligation on any water authority to provide a direct water supply?
Those glaring omissions cause the Opposition both regret and despair. We do not intend to divide the House on Second Reading, but in Committee we shall want many answers to many questions. We reserve our action on Third Reading.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In consideration of the time of the House, I may defer dealing with some of the points raised and deal with them by correspondence or in Committee.
Two main themes have been apparent. The first is that the Bill should contain many more proposals than it does. The second concerns the consequences of the measures on cost and particularly cost to domestic ratepayers.
The Bill is designed with three fairly small aims. It is designed primarily to increase the borrowing limits for the British Waterways Board. We hope that we can proceed with the Bill in reasonably quick time, so that the board will be able to have the new borrowing limits to operate in the current and subsequent years.
The Government have not used this occasion to widen the scope of the legislation to cater for the myriad points that Opposition Members have sought to include in the Bill. There may be additional opportunities in due course. We do not believe that it is our duty to legislate wide, long and far in order to produce a modest return. We have covered many of the points by administrative action. The reference to my hon. Friend and his 10 points suggests that hon. Gentlemen do not realise how much can be done by administrative action.
There is no need to introduce legislation, for example, to try to improve the financial accountability of the water authorities. We have done that. We have set the cash limits. We have required them to produce a more frequent account of their stewardship and more statements concerning their employees and their activities. We are also concerned to see a better performance from those elected to represent local authorities on the water authorities. We can take those actions without the substantial additional consequence of legislation. I recognise that many hon. Members wish to see steps taken to improve the efficiency of water authorities. Because such measures are not contained in the Bill it does not

mean that no action is being taken. I shall refer at greater length in Committee to the actions that can and should be taken.
Let me now deal with clause 2, concerning fire-fighting charges and the consequences for domestic ratepayers. It is not correct to suggest that the burden of the withdrawal of those charges will fall on the domestic ratepayer. It will fall on the same category of consumer as that on which charges are currently levied, namely, the industrial and commercial user. It will fall within the two-part tariff of the authorities concerned. I accept that within that category charges are likely to rise by about 1 per cent. I apologise to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). Allow me to correct the information that I previously gave him.
I make no apology to the House. The main reason for the change is that it is in the interests of public safety. Changes in sprinkler systems or the acquisition of fire precaution measures could still continue from normal charges. However, where the charges have suddenly lifted from about £5 to £1,370, there could be a deterrent at least for postponement. It is sensible to use the opportunity to allow water authorities to be relieved of the burden of charging in that way.
I also recognise that water authorities, by the Water Act 1973, must not discriminate between categories of customer. Section 30 made that clear. We therefore either have to remove the power or take discriminatory action.

Mr. Denis Howell: I merely wish to refer to the Minister's comments about the effect of clause 2. If we exclude from these charges those who have a supply of water for fire-fighting purposes, whether through sprinklers or mains, the charge has to be paid by the remaining consumers, who are overwhelmingly domestic consumers. There may be a few small commercial properties that will pay, but most of industry, commerce and shops will be beneficiaries at the expense of the remainder, which is overwhelmingly the domestic users.

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that, as he was wrong about many other matters, but he will no doubt return to the point in Committee.
The clause does not increase the money supply. We are raising the borrowing powers which, over time, the British Waterways Board may seek to raise in terms of cash, either from central financing or from private sector sources. We shall return to those matters in Committee.
Some hon. Members mentioned the legal position on burst mains, and in particular the problems of the NFU and County Landowners Association. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), supported by other hon. Members, was concerned about that. I fully accept that this is a problem that we must find a way of solving. Undoubtedly, the water authorities have wider powers of entry and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) suggested, they may not deposit plans that can be easily examined by others. They have greater powers than many other authorities in dealing with entry to land, and they do not require wayleaves or easements.
Although my hon. Friend was right to argue that in the case of the law on negligence something should be done about the consequences, he will also agree that the law of liability is equally cumbersome and difficult. I accept that this principle is one about which we should take action, but, bearing in mind the observations that I made on the


scope of the Bill, I do not think that this Bill is the correct vehicle for that action. I hope that legislation can be found that will allow the action that my hon. Friend has recommended. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East also suggested, here is a wide range of reasons why action should be taken on this matter—reasons that are not solely connected with the water industry or its agents. I ask him to bear with me on that, although I accept the principle that he suggests.
There was substantial comment about the British Waterways Board and its activities. Many hon. Members commented on that, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). I appreciate that there is a major conflict of objective as to whether the influence should be upon commercial development—the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) is an arch-exponent of that in relation to the South Yorkshire navigation—or whether it should be concentrated on amenity value and the leisure industry.
I tend to take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North with regard to the amenity value of our canals, namely, that this sector must produce developments. But the problem is to generate revenue thereby on the scale required to maintain and develop the system. At this early stage I cannot produce sensible thoughts with regard to the future of the British Waterways Board and the canal system, but I recognise the dilemma. The dilemma was referred to by the hon. Member for Edmonton in relation to the Frankel report and what then follows. It is the question of the sheer costs of maintaining the system, much of which is archaic and cannot justify commercial rates of income and revenue, but all of which requires significant maintainance and some development.
We must examine the matter closely to see how far amenities can produce increased revenue. Equally, we must look at that stretch—there are few such stretches—where genuine commercial freight can be carried at a profit. But between the two there is this large network of a system that has high maintenance charges and inadequate prospects for taking large amounts of revenue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) made a suggestion about the disposal of property. I take his point. We must discuss it with the board, because if property can be sold and that can help with maintenance costs or in reducing Government intervention, it will be all to the good.
With regard to Government subvention, although the grant in real terms has remained constant between 1980–81 and 1981–82 at £19 million in real terms—or £25 million in 1980–81 and £28·5 million in 1981–82 at outturn prices—it is clearly an insufficient amount to cover all that the board would wish to do, and probably an insufficient amount to cover all that hon. Members would wish to do. But I suggest that it is not yet the time and place at which to decide to give expenditures in this field a higher priority than all other expenditures for which the Government are responsible.
Let the House be under no illusion: the ravages of inflation are such that the Government have an overriding duty to see that that rate of inflation comes down. The problems that the British Waterways Board faces are just the same as those in any other business that sees its costs rising and its income static, or even declining. The bringing down of the rate of inflation will make as great

a contribution to the prospects for the British Waterways Board as it will for the rest of British industry, and we should still regard that as our prime target in discussing how to finance the waterways.
Finally, I am grateful for the kind words—

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister intend to respond to comments made about the effects of equalisation? Does he intend to tell us about any ideas that the Government may have for substituting constructive proposals in that regard?

Mr. Shaw: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has made an important point in that respect. I should not like to comment on it at this stage, but I shall write to him about it, and no doubt we shall also discuss it in Committee.
I am most grateful for the kind words of welcome from hon. Members on each side of the House. I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill in the expectation that the House will now give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — WATER [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the increasing of the borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to provisions increasing to £35 million the aggregate amount which may be outstanding in respect of—

(a) the principal of any money borrowed by the British Waterways Board under section 19 of the Transport Act 1962; and
(b) the Board's commencing capital debt as defined in Part II of that Act.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Orders of the Day — Visas (United States of America)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mr. Michael Spicer: I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise the one-sided arrangement which exists between the United States and this country on the question of visas. I do so as someone who is firmly committed to a belief in the vital importance of the continuation of the present excellent relationships between the United States and this country.
The arrangements by which United Kingdom citizens wishing to visit the United States are required to have their passports stamped with a visa by the United States consular authorities in this country date back 50 years. For those United Kingdom citizens who are short-term visitors, this has always been a non-reciprocal and therefore unfair arrangement.
It could have been argued in the past that, when there were relatively small numbers of people travelling between this country and the United States, the visa requirement was a trivial inconvenience, in that the consular officials in London particularly—and, indeed, at other consulates—were able to deal with the demand for visas without delay. Passports sent to the embassy were


returned almost immediately and the applicant who was in a great hurry could obtain a visa on the spot if he presented himself at the consulate.
With the arrival of cheap travel, the abolition of exchange controls and the relative decline of the dollar, the number of United Kingdom citizens wishing to take holidays or to do short-term business trips to the United States has exploded. Last year there were 875,000—nearly 1 million—visa applications from the United Kingdom alone. That is not the same as the number of those travelling from the United Kingdom to the United States. That figure would be considerably higher. I am also informed that this year the number of visa applications—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mr. Spicer: This year the number of applications for visas from United Kingdom citizens for travel to the United States is expected to show an increase on last year's figure of about 20 per cent., or one-fifth. There will be more than 1 million applications despite the fact that in a recession one would not expect much foreign travel. I stress that that figure is lower than the figure for the number of people who will travel.
The enormous increase in the number of people requiring visas has put the issue into a new context both because it affects a very large number of our citizens and because of the inevitable delays, frustrations and, in some cases, great inconveniences that are caused.
At the end of last year, I visited the visa department at the United States embassy in London. The officials who showed me round could not have been more courteous or helpful. I do not think that I am misinterpreting their position when I say that they would warmly welcome the abolition of the visa requirement. The visa department of the United States embassy in London now takes up most of the ground floor. Recently a computer has been installed whose sole purpose is to process visa applications. In the high season, visa work takes up the time of about 60 full-time staff. No amount of computers could overcome the mammoth problem of processing and storing up to 4,400 passports a day between the months of March and September.
In addition, in the eyes of United States consular officials, the whole exercise is pretty fruitless, because—this may not be generally appreciated—the visa is not the key determinant of whether a visitor to the United States will be permitted entry. Nor is it the key determinant of the length of time that he will be allowed to stay there. That is determined by the immigration and naturalisation services of the Department of Justice. Officials from the Department of Justice man all the ports of entry into the United States and for them the visa stamp is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for allowing a visitor to enter the United States.
The visa factory—that is what the department should be called—operates about as efficiently as possible. A British citizen who presents himself at the embassy is allowed to deposit his passport in a box on the understanding that it will be returned to him within three to four hours. Understandably, many people—especially those who have travelled long distance to London—are unwilling to hand over their passports when they are uncertain whether they will be returned with a visa. They

therefore, typically, enter a waiting room so that the passport can be directly stamped. Even out of season, during the winter months, when I have visited it, the waiting room is Bedlam. Out of season, the wait for the visa stamp can be relatively short.
However, during the summer months and the high season which we shall enter in two or three months there is an unbearable crush in the waiting room. I am told that the conditons in it are quite unacceptable, and can be suffered by British citizens for a whole day while they wait for their visas to be stamped.
The alternative to presenting one's passport at the consular office is to send it through the post. Leaving aside the eccentricities of the British postal services, every effort is made by the United States consular officials to return the passport, if it is sent through the post, within three weeks.
Even with computerisation, and even if one assumes that the three-week period is maintained, there are several days after the passport has been posted and has arrived at the United States embassy when it is in effect lost to the world, when waiting to be processed. That period has been reduced to four or five days, but the passport is lost during that time. During that period, anyone who wishes to have his passport for emergency purposes cannot have it. I know several cases in which people have had to go to Petty France to be given an emergency temporary passport.
The document for a visa is not complicated, but it has to be filled in properly. After three weeks, if the applicant has failed to fill in the documentation properly, the passport will naturally be returned to him without a visa. I know of at least one example in my constituency during the past year where that as has happened. One of my constituents, who is a solicitor, had booked a summer holiday for his family in the United States, but nearly had to cancel it despite having started the process of obtaining a visa in the spring of that year. He received the visa two-and-half months after his first application.
I do not mention such examples in order to criticise the United States consular authorities in London. When I visited them, I found them extremely sympathetic. They were determined to do the best possible job, given the difficulties under which they were working. What is at issue is not the efficiency with which the consular authorities carry out their job, but the policy itself.
As regards the policy, I believe that there is a good deal of sympathy in Washington for British citizens who wish to visit the United States. I feel that that sympathy is now coalescing into strong support for a change in the visa laws as the United States economy becomes more and more dependent on foreign exchange earnings from tourism. There is evidence that the State Department, the Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives have been pressing for some time to put the visa requirements with countries such as the United Kingdom on a reciprocal, and therefore fair, basis.
I understand that the main opposition in Washington has come from the immigration interests, both in the Government and in Congress. I have seen one letter written by a former chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in which he justifies the visa requirement on the basis that, once a person enters the United States, movements are not monitored as, in his words, a United States citizen's are if he stays in hotels in many European countries.
That argument does not wash with respect to the United Kingdom. I know of no case in which a visa is required


on a short stay or in which a US citizen coming to this country has his movements monitored in any way while he is here.
So much for the United States authorities' position. As for the British Government's attitude, I know from an answer that I received to a question to the Minister of State on 16 July 1980 that it remains the Government's policy to seek the abolition of the visa requirement.
The reason that I have sought this opportunity to raise the matter again tonight and have tabled a parliamentary question on the subject to the Prime Minister for reply on 27 January is that it seems to me that the new Presidency and the change in the political complexion of the Congress make this a highly appropriate day on which to consider pressing the matter again in Washington.
On 4 December I wrote on this matter to the chairmen of the Senate and House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committees. I hope that I shall be receiving a reply in the not too distant future. If necessary, I plan to meet those two chairmen in Washington as soon as I can get over there, preferably in the week of 20 April, when I hope to be there.
However, I should have hoped that this would rapidly become superfluous as the British Government manage to persuade the new American Administration to act. I hope that the Prime Minister will find an opportunity to raise this matter with President Reagan when she meets him on 26 February. In the meantime, I much look forward to what the Minister has to say tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on his well-argued presentation of the problems caused by the imposition of the American visa system on British visitors to the United States. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the excellent relations that exist between our two countries. He has chosen a most appropriate day, following the inauguration, a few hours ago, of President Reagan, to put forward suggestions as to how we can cement still further the close ties between our two countries. Concrete proof of this has been demonstrated by an upsurge in the number of British visitors to the United States over the past two years.
I listened with great interest and, indeed, sympathy to what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that this represents the views of many hon. Members. It might be useful if I cover a little of the background, as my hon. Friend has already done with great efficiency.
The American visa system is essentially a filter. A visa does not in itself entitle the holder to gain admittance to the United States. As I understand the American position, current legislation, which has existed for many years, requires that all foreigners except Canadians and certain categories of Mexican citizens need to have visas for entry into the United States. Before this visa requirement on the majority of the world can be abolishd, or before it can be abolished in any one particular case, new legislation is apparently necessary. Thus, in American eyes the abolition of the visa requirement for British subjects is complicated by this need for legislation, and by the fact that the British position is, in the American view,

enmeshed with that of other countries. Over the years Congressmen have sought to enact legislation to abolish the visa requirement for at least some countries; but, regrettably, it has not so far reached the stage of enactment. I shall be commenting further on this a little later.
My hon. Friend referred to the procedures operated by the American embassy in London to illustrate the effects on visa applicants of the current policy. I can understand the sense of frustration which many applicants must feel. But I am sure that the American embassy takes every possible measure to try to reduce the waiting time for visas. My hon. Friend set out clearly and, as I understand it, accurately, the time that it can take to obtain a visa. At the same time, I am sure that the House will have noted the tribute he paid to the efficiency of the embassy in London.
I turn to the British position. In 1948 Her Majesty's Government abolished the requirement for United States citizens entering this country to be in possession of British visas. It was our hope at the time that the American Government would follow suit and abolish their requirement for visas to which I have referred. When the Americans failed to follow suit, we made representations to them. We have continued to press the Americans to abandon the visa requirement for the United Kingdom. We have made numerous representations, most recently by our embassy at Washington to the American State Department in October last year.
Before going any further I should touch on one suggestion which has been made to us. It is that, as we have been waiting since 1948 for the Americans to reciprocate our gesture and abolish the requirement for visas, we should now achieve reciprocity by reimposing a visa requirement on United States citizens entering this country. I appreciate that my hon. Friend did not suggest that. Such a step would obviously achieve reciprocity. But there are a number of disadvantages to such a course.
There are very practical difficulties. The first relates to expense. In 1979—the last year for which complete statistics are available—some 1,900,000 United States citizens entered this country. Assuming that they would still have come here if they had needed visas, an estimated 275 extra staff at our consulates in the United States would have been required to process applications and issue the visas. The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to reduce the size of the Civil Service, not to increase it.
Quite apart from these huge extra costs, we are in no position to predict whether the imposition of such a visa requirement on United States citizens coming to the United Kingdom would in fact have the effect of inducing the American Government to abolish the requirement for British citizens to obtain American visas. It would, in my view, be just as likely simply to deter American visitors from coming here, with all the undesirable repercussions on our balance of payments which that would have. The various disadvantages of such an
Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth
policy are, in my view, such that we can reject it.
There is little more that I need say in response to my hon. Friend's excellent speech, except that it remains the policy of her Majesty's Government to press the United States Government for the abolition of the visa requirement on United Kingdom citizens. We recognise that this could involve them in legislation, but see absolutely no reason why they should not now urgently


address themselves to the task of putting right this anomaly. Her Majesty's Government will naturally take an early opportunity of making representations to President Reagan's Administration on this question. I say that in response to my hon. Friend's suggestion.
This has been a most valuable debate and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject. I am sure that the United States Government will take note of the interest of the House in the subject. In the meantime, I stress that if my hon. Friend or, for that matter, any other hon. Members has any complaints about individual cases, he

may like to consider taking them up with His Excellency the American Ambassador. In addition, I think that it would be right to suggest that my hon. Friend and all hon. Members who feel strongly about the need to see the end of the United States visa requirement might wish to continue to make their views known to the American authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o' clock.